[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5040-5042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-354]
Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic City
Electric 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.
NPF-57 issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic
City Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Hope Creek
Generating Station, located on the east shore of the Delaware River in
Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would change Hope Creek Generating Station
Technical Specifications 4.6.2.2.b, ``Suppression Pool Spray,'' and
4.6.2.3.b, ``Suppression Pool Cooling,'' to include flow through the
RHR heat exchanger bypass line (in addition to the RHR heat exchanger)
in the Suppression Pool Cooling and Suppression Pool Spray flow path
used during RHR pump testing.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. 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. Will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
The proposed amendment request changes Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 4.6.2.3.b of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, Suppression
Pool Cooling, and SR 4.6.2.2.b of TS 3.6.2.2, Suppression Pool
Spray, to clarify that the intent of these specific SRs is to
confirm Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump performance during
Suppression Pool Cooling (SPC) and Suppression Pool Spray (SPS)
operation. The proposed change revises the SRs to include the RHR
heat exchanger bypass line, with the bypass valve closed, and the
RHR heat exchanger in the SPC and SPS flow path used during
performance of the surveillances.
The RHR system is an accident mitigation system. The proposed
changes do not change the operation or capabilities of the RHR
system in either mode of operation. The proposed changes do not
involve any physical changes to the RHR system. The proposed changes
merely modify the acceptable flow path for the surveillance tests,
the purpose of which is to verify pump performance in these modes of
operation. Therefore, the proposed change to the SRs for the SPC and
SPS mode of operation of the RHR system will not increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Furthermore, the performance of the RHR system in any of its
operational modes will be unchanged by the proposed change. The
changes affect only the pump performance SRs for the SPC and SPS
modes of RHR system operation. The surveillances being changed only
modify the acceptable flow path used during the performance of the
pump performance surveillances. The surveillances still verify that
pump performance has not degraded to a point where the accident
mitigation function of the system has not been compromised.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve an increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change, a clarification of the SPC and SPS mode
flow paths for pump performance testing, does not result in a
modification of the RHR system, change the method of SPC or SPS
operation, or alter the system's effectiveness. Suppression Pool
Cooling and Containment Spray Cooling, of which Suppression Pool
Spray is a part, are manually initiated actions. Existing procedures
for the initiation of these two modes of operation are unchanged,
including the requirement that the Low Pressure Coolant Injection
valve is closed before the containment spray valves can be opened.
There are no new failure modes created by the proposed changes and
no new accident initiating events are created. Therefore, the
proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed changes do not change the operation of the RHR
system in any of its modes of operation. The changes only clarify
the fact that the purpose of the SRs is to confirm RHR pump
performance through the most restrictive conditions of the flow path
while operating in either the SPC or SPS modes. The changed
surveillances still verify that pump performance has not degraded to
a point where the original design basis can not be met. In order to
assure the system meets its original design basis, adequate flow
through the heat exchanger during surveillance testing will be
maintained. Since the function of all of the operational modes of
the RHR system are unaffected by the revised surveillance test flow
path, the proposed changes will maintain the existing 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 15 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 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would
[[Page 5041]]
result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the
Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the
15-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. 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, 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 March 11, 1996, 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 Pennsville Public Library, 190 S.
Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070. 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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 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 F. Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I-2:
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, Washington, DC
20555, and to M. J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3502, 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
[[Page 5042]]
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 February 5, 1996, 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 Pennsville Public Library, 190 S.
Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David H. Jaffe,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-2839 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
