ML20128E910
| ML20128E910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1993 |
| From: | Hubbard G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128E894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302110142 | |
| Download: ML20128E910 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 7590 01 MlJED STATES NQCLEAR REGUL6 TORY COMMISSION OMAHA PUBLIC PJ)WER DISTRICT QQCKET NO. 50-285 NOTICE _OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT 16 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSE 0JO SIMlfl(_4NT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR_ HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No. DPR-40 issued to-Omaha Public Power District for operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit I located in Washington County, Nebraska.
The proposed amendment would allow the fuel rack storage capacity in the Spent Fuel Pool to be increased to provide storage for 1083 assemblies.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant huards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
9302110142 930121-PDR .ADOCK 05000285 P PDR
} j
i The proposed changes do not involve significant hazards considerations because operation of the Fort Calhoun Station Unit No.1 in accordare with these changes would not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In the course of the analysis, the following potential accident scenarios have been considered:
- a. A spent fuel assembly drop in the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)
- b. Loss of STP cooling system flow
- c. A seismic event
- d. A spent fuel cask drop
- e. A construction accident Etabability of an acciden_t The increased storage capacity of the SFP has been analyzed for the existing fuel handling equi > ment and procedures, SFP cooling system, and seismic events. No cast movement is contemplated as part of this modification. The Auxiliary Building crane will be used to bring the racks into the Auxiliary Building. Thus, the proposed modification does not increase the probability of any of the first four accidents.
With regard to the construction accident, the Technical Specifications prohibit loads heavier than the weight of a single spent fuel assembly plus CEA [ Control Element Assembly), and-the tool for moving that assembly, from being carried over fuel stored in the SFP. All work in the SFP area will be controlled anu performed in strict accordance with s)ecific written procedures and administrative controls to preclude tie movement of a rack directly over any fuel. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of'a construction accident is not significantly increased as a result of the proposed reracking.
In addition, Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.6 of NUREG-0612, entitled
" Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants", provide guidance for heavy load handling operations pursuant to a spent fuel storage-rack replacement. Section 5.1.2 provides four alternatives for assuring the safe handling of heavy loads during a_ fuel storage rack replacement. Alternative (1) of Section 5.1.2 provides that the control of heavy loads guidelines can be satisfied by establishing that the potential for a heavy load drop is_ extremely small.
The Auxiliary Building overhead electric crane with rated load capacity of 75 tons will be used for the reracking operation. -Tne maximum weight of an individual new rack or existing rack is less
, , __ __ __ _ ._ . _ , ..~. .
than 10 tons. The weight of the lifting fixture is less than 2 tons, which results in a minimum factor of safety of 6.25. In addition, the crane sptem and the lift rig to be employed in the rerack operation are single-failure proof. Therefore, the potential for crane failure is extremely low and alternative (1) of Section , .
5.1.2 of NUREG-0612 is satisfied. '
Accordingly, the proposed modification does not involve a '
significant increase in the probability of a load drop accident since NUREG-0612 guidelines for defense-in-depth to prevent load drop accidents have been satisfied.
Potential consecuences oLan accident The consequences of a spent fuel assembly drop in the SFP were evaluated and it was found that the criticality acceptance criterion, k,,, s 0.95, is not violated. In addition, it was found that there was no significant change in the radiological consequences of a fuel assembly drop from the previous analyses..
The analyses found that the calculated doses are well within 10 CFR 100 guidelines. The results of an analysis show that a dropped spent fuel assembly on the racks will not distort the racks such that they would not perform their safety function. Thus, the consequences of this type of accident are not significantly changed from the previously evaluated spent fuel assembly drops.
The consequences of a loss of SFP cooling system flow have been evaluated and it was found that sufficient time is available to provide an alternate means for cooling in the event of a complete failure of the cooling system. Thus, consequences of this type accident are not significantly increased from previously evaluated loss-of-cooling system flow accidents.
The consequences of a seismic event have been evaluated. The new racks will be designed and fabricated to meet the requirements-of applicable portions of the NRC Regulatory Guides and published standards. The new free-standing racks are designed, as are the existing racks, so that the integrity of the racks and the pool structure is maintained during and after a design basis seismic event. Thus, the consequences of a seismic event are not increased from previously evaluated events.
The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop will not be affected by the replacement of the racks, as no spent fuel cask movement is contemplated as part of this modification. OPPD District) does not presently utilize or own a spent (Omahafuel sample Public caskPower or spent fuel shipping cask. If such casks were to be utilized the single-failure-proof main hook of the Auxiliary Building Crane would be used to move these casks. In addition, electrical interlocks are
, , .-- , - . . . - -, . , , - - , , --- g
l installed which preclude travel of the main hook over the spent fuel pool (NVREG-0612). The likelihood of occurrence of a cask drop is greatly reduced through these considerations. Heavy Load paths have been proposed to circumvent carrying a cask over spent fut1. Thus the need for consideration of a radiological release impact of a cask drop accident is obviated. OPPD concludes that an analysis of the radiological consequences of a cask drop accident is not required.
The consecuences of a construction accident have been considered. A heavy load will not be carried in the SFP area until all fuel in the pool has decayed for a minimum of two months. This provides sufficient time for decay of gaseous radionuclides in the fuel (gap activity) such that an assumed accidental release of gases from damage to all stored fuel assemblies would resuit in a potential off-site dose less than 10% of 10 CFR 100 limits. In addition, load paths were evaluated in accordance with the Criteria contained in NUREG-0612 and found to be acceptable. It is concluded, therefore, that the consequences of a construction accident are not significantly increased from previously evaluated events.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment to replace the spent fuel racks in the SFP does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident .
previously evaluated.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed modification was evaluated in accordance with the guidance of the NRC Position Paper entitled, "0T Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications",
appropriate NRC Regulatory guides, appropriate NRC Standard Review Plans, and appropriate industry codes and standards. In addition, several previous NRC Safety Evaluation Reports for rerack applications similar to this proposed modification have been reviewed.
No unproven technology will be utilized either in the construction process or in the analytical techniques necessary to justify the planned fuel storage expansion. In fact, the basic reracking technology in this instance has been developed and demonstrated in over 80 applications for fuel pool capacity increases previously approved by the NRC.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that tha , ) posed reracking does not create the possibility of a new different type accident from any accident previously evaluated.
I
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Nuclear criticality considerations i
The established acceptance criterion for criticality is that the l neutron multiplication factor in spent fuel pools shall be less than 1 or equal to 0.95, including all uncertainties, under all conditions. '
This margin of safety has been adhered to in the criticality analysis methods for the new rack design.
The methods used in the criticality analysis conformed to the applicable portions of the appropriate NRC guidance and industry codes, standards, and specifications, as listed in the Licensing Report. In meeting the acceptance criteria for criticality in the SFP, such that k , is always less than 0.95, including uncertainties at,,a 95%/95% probability / confidence level, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for nuclear criticality.
Thermal-hydraulic considerations Conservative methods were used to calculate the maximum fuel cladding temperature and the increase in temperature of the water in the SFP. The thermal-hydraulic evaluation used the methods previously employed for evaluations of the present spent fuel racks to demonstrate that the margins of safety for pool temaeratures are maintained. The proposed modification will increase tie heat load in the SFP. The evaluation shows that the existing SFP system will maintain the bulk pool water temperature below 140*F. Thus, a mergin of safety exists such that the maximum allowable temperature for bulk boiling is not exceeded for the calculated increase in pool heat load. The evaluation also shows that maximum local water temperature along the hottest fuel assembly is below the nucleate boiling condition value. Thus, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety for thermal-hydraulic or spent fuel cooling concerns.
Mechanical. material and structural considerations The main safety function of the spent fuel pool and the racks is to maintain the spent fuel assemblics in a safe configuration through all normal or abnormal loadings. Abnormal loadings which have been considered are the effect of an earthquake, the impact due to a spent fuel cask drop, the drop of a spent fuel assembly, or the drop of any object used in the rerack modification. The mechanical, material, and structural design of the new spent fuel racks is in accordance witn applicable portions of *0T Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", dated April 14, 1978, as modified January 18, 1979; Standard Review Plan
Section 3.8.4; and other applicable NRC guidance and industry codes.
The rack materials used are compatible with the SFP and the spent fuel assemblies. The structural considerations of the new racks address margins of safety against tilting and deflection or movement, such that the racks do not impact each other in the cellular region during the postulated seismic events. In addition, the spent fuel assemblies remain intact and no criticality concerns exist. Thus, the margins of safety are not significantly reduced by the proposed rerack.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Directives Review Branch, Division of freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions l
e
.y.
By March 4, 1993, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license end any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ' Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at W. Dale Clark Library, 215 South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order. As required.by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular -
reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on
f 8-4 (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person wno has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions- '
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. in addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information l
i to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant eii a matierial issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope.of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to l
l l
l
file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at i least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject '
to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
. hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the b
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating'or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day :.stice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this i
action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance and l
~ ,-,-,c.- m +-.-y,, -, , -- ,- . -- .~s
f j
O provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects .
that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. l A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ;
l Commission,. Washington, DC 20555, /,ttention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,.the Gelman ;
Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,. Washington, DC 20555, by the above date. Where petitions-are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a_ toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri- 1-(800)342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to John T. Larkins:
petitioner's name and. telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, '
and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washingto_n, DC 20555, and to LeBoeuf, Lamb,- '
Leiby, and MacRae, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009-5728, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended ,
petitions, supplemental-petitions.and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or-the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that.the petition and/or-request should be granted based upon a-balancing of the factors specified in. -
10CFR.2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v)and-2.714(d).
I 4
w4+n -m.-n,n,.m-,n , n e e- A-e*
t
.' i The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license a ::ndment falling within the scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. i 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of any party to the proceeding,,is authorized to use hybrid hearing procedures with respect to "any matter which the Commission determines to be in controversy among the parties." The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's rules, and the designation, following argument, of only those factual issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are found in 10 CFR Part 2, subpart X, " Hybrid Hearing Procedures for Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors" (published at 50 FR 41662 (October 15,1985). Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing or petition to intervene. (As outlined above, the Commission'; rules in 10 CFR Part 2, subpart G continue to govern the filing-of requests for a. hearing or petitions to intervene, as well as the admission ofcontentions.) The presiding officar shall grant a timely request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely request for oral
1 0
to respond to the untimely request. If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing held on the application shall be conducted in accordance with the hybrid hearing procedures, in essence, those procedures limit the time available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If no part to the proceeding requests oral argument, or if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, subpart G apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated December 7,1992, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Pubile Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washingtca, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at W. Dale Clark Library, 215 South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of January 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
}Y is fif George T. Hubbard, Acting Director Project Directorate IV Division of Reactor Projects - !!!/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
., _ . _ _ , _