[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29158-29160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14012]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311]
Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Consideration
of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the
licensee) for operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, located in Salem County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement 4.7.6.1.d.1 to indicate that the specified
acceptance filter differential pressure (DP) is to be measured across
the filter housing and to change the filter DP acceptance value from
3.5 inches water gauge to 2.70 inches water
gauge.
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.
The [Control Room Emergency Air Conditioning System] CREACS filter
train is provided for post-accident atmospheric cleanup of the control
room air volume in order to limit doses to control room personnel to
less than the limits prescribed by 10CFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 19.
The CREACS does not communicate with the Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) and does not penetrate the Containment. The environmental
controls portion of the system (i.e., cooling coil, fans, ductwork and
associated dampers, and filtration capability) are not affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, control room temperature, humidity, air
distribution and cleanliness requirements will continue to be
maintained within acceptance limits. As such, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is unchanged.
The change to the Surveillance Test boundary requires that the
pressure drop across all elements in the filter train be evaluated,
thereby ensuring that the CREACS filter is maintained in a condition
which would not restrict post-accident CREACS flow below acceptable
levels. The change to the filter DP acceptance limit reallocates design
margin associated with filter performance to CREACS fan performance in
the control room pressurization mode. As such,
[[Page 29159]]
infiltration of potentially contaminated air is limited to that
presently in the dose analysis. The Technical Specification maximum
allowable CREACS flow rate, minimum allowable [high-efficiency
particulate air] HEPA and Charcoal Adsorber removal efficiencies, and
post-accident control room pressurization requirements are not affected
by this change. As such, the consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are unchanged.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The CREACS does not communicate with the Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) and does not penetrate the Containment. The proposed changes do
not require any modification to the CREACS or its support systems. The
design basis safety function of the CREACS is unaffected by the
proposed changes. The environmental controls portion of the CREACS
(i.e., cooling coil, fans, ductwork and associated dampers, and
filtration capability) are not affected by the proposed changes. As
such control room temperature, humidity and air distribution
requirements will continue to be maintained within acceptance limits.
The maximum allowable CREACS flow rate and control room DP requirements
imposed by the Technical Specifications are not changed by this
proposal. For these reasons, the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident is not created.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
A new acceptance limit for filter DP (i.e., cleanliness) has been
proposed. The change to the filter DP acceptance reallocates design
margin associated with filter performance to CREACS fan performance in
the control room pressurization mode. Planned modifications to reduce
control room leakage paths, together with the proposed changes to the
CREACS filter DP Surveillance Test acceptance limit, ensure that
control room pressurization requirements and CREACS filter
functionality are maintained during post-accident operation.
The environmental controls portion of the system (i.e., cooling
coil, fans, ductwork and associated dampers, and filtration capability)
are not affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, control room
temperature, humidity, air distribution and cleanliness requirements
will continue to be maintained within acceptance limits. The proposed
changes to the Surveillance Test boundary and acceptance limits
maintain a conservative Operability standard for the CREACS filter
train. Acceptance limits and test methods specified for the HEPA filter
and Charcoal Adsorber efficiencies are not affected by this proposal.
Based on the above discussions, it is concluded that the margin of
safety has not been reduced.
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 June 30, 1997, 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
[[Page 29160]]
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: 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 20555-0001, and to Mark 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 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 May 14, 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 23rd day of May 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard N. Olshan,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-14012 Filed 5-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
