[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66397-66399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33054]
[[Page 66397]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-272]
Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Consideration
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-70 issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee)
for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, located
in Salem County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would provide a one-time change to the
Technical Specifications to allow purging of the containment during
Modes 3 (Hot Standby) and 4 (Hot Shutdown) upon return to power from
the current outage (1R13). Because of the replacement of the steam
generators, a large amount of new thermal insulation was installed.
Although this insulation was pre-baked to minimize off-gassing,
previous Salem and other industry experience indicates that there could
be significant off-gassing from the insulation during the plant heat-up
resulting in an uninhabitable containment atmosphere. The ability to
purge the containment during Modes 3 and 4 will provide the most safe,
efficient means of removing the off-gasses from the insulation.
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 hazards 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:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Performance of containment purging as proposed in this license
change request does not modify any primary system, secondary system,
or power supply system. The purging equipment will be operated as it
was designed to be operated. In summary, no accident initiator will
be affected by the proposed containment purging in Modes 3 and 4.
For this reason, the activity does not involve an increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A conservative engineering evaluation was performed to calculate
an upper bound for the dose consequences of a postulated LOCA during
Modes 3 or 4 prior to Unit 1 Cycle 13 power operation. The
computations performed evaluate a postulated release of the entire
core inventory. The release is modeled as a ``puff'' release of core
activity that is transported directly to the environment via the
plant vent, taking no credit for containment isolation. The release
is modeled as being instantaneous. This is conservative because the
highest atmospheric dispersion factors are associated with the
initial release period (0 to 2 hours). Twenty-five percent of the
core radioactive iodine and one hundred percent of the core noble
gas inventories were assumed to be immediately available for release
from the containment in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.4.
Computations were developed for whole body gamma dose, beta skin
dose and thyroid dose at the Unit 1 control room air intakes, and
whole body gamma dose and thyroid dose at the exclusion area
boundary (EAB).
The evaluation results show that the whole body dose and the
thyroid dose at the EAB are negligible compared to the 10 CFR 100
limits and that the doses are less than the corresponding doses
calculated for the design basis LOCA.
The results also indicate that the thyroid dose at the control
room air intakes is negligible when compared to the GDC 19 and SRP
6.4 criteria and that the calculated whole body dose is well within
its limit. The computed thyroid and whole body control room doses
are less than the corresponding doses calculated for the design
basis LOCA.
The computations indicate that the calculated control room beta
skin dose is within the 75 rem limit for protective eyewear use. In
consideration of the possibility of a LOCA, however low, protective
eyewear will be provided to control room personnel during the
purging process.
Even though no credit is taken for containment isolation in the
dose assessment, it should be noted that the valves are expected to
close when requested to do so. The containment supply and exhaust
valves are tested within the surveillance program to check valve
stroke times. Additionally, they are designed to close in response
to Containment Ventilation Isolation and Phase A Isolation signals.
This response is also tested periodically. Each purge penetration is
protected by two automatic isolation valves which are safety related
and leak tested. Therefore, although no credit has been taken for
isolation of the purge supply and exhaust penetrations, the valve
closure will probably occur in the event of a design basis accident
in Modes 3 or 4.
Additionally, the actual time of purging will be minimized,
significantly reducing the chance that the worst case of a LOCA
while purging could occur.
Plant effluent monitors provide the same monitoring capability
in Modes 3 and 4 as they do in Modes 5 and 6 and the guidance
necessary to assess the radiological consequences of any purge in
Modes 3 and 4 is contained, and will be followed, in existing plant
procedures.
For the above reasons, it is concluded that purging of the
containment in Modes 3 and 4 during return from 1R13 does not
involve a significant increase in either the probability or the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
As is noted above, no accident initiators are affected by the
proposed activity. The safety function of the purge valves is
containment isolation. Performance of containment purging as
proposed in this license change request does not modify any primary
system, secondary system, or power supply system. Purging proposed
in Modes 3 and 4 will be conducted and monitored in the same manner
as it is routinely carried out in the shutdown modes. Therefore no
new ``accident initiators'' are created by this activity. One
difference is considered in the dose analysis. Although it is
believed that containment isolation would occur, the conservative
dose analysis, which takes no credit for containment isolation,
calculates the doses for a LOCA during purging, to be within
regulatory guidance. For these reasons, the activity will not create
the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (the fuel and fuel cladding,
the Reactor Coolant System pressure boundary, and the containment)
to limit the level of radiation doses to the public. The proposed
purging of the containment will occur at the end of an extended
outage of over 2 1/2 years in length. The level of decay heat and
activity in the reactor is very low compared to the levels
associated with full power operations. For this reason, the
likelihood of fuel damage following a LOCA occurring during the
purging process is significantly reduced. Additionally the length of
time that the purging will occur has been limited. This reduces the
likelihood of the LOCA occurring during the purging process.
Conservative dose assessment performed to provide an upper bound
shows that whole body and thyroid dose to the public is virtually
non existent, and whole body and thyroid dose to the control room
personnel is well within regulatory guidance and lower tha[n] design
basis accident analysis.
The dose computations indicate that the calculated control room
beta skin dose is
[[Page 66398]]
within the 75 rem limit for protective eyewear use. In consideration
of the possibility of a LOCA, however low, protective eyewear will
be provided to control room personnel during the purging process.
For these reasons, the activity does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
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 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
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 notice 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 action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this
action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, 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.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By January 20, 1998 the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license and 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, and at the local public
document room located at the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West
Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. 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
Panel, 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 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
who 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 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 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
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
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 file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at 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.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the
Office of the General Counsel,
[[Page 66399]]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to
Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038, 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 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated December 11, 1997, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local
public document room located at the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West
Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-33054 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
