[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33378-33379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12963]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-311]


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-75 issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 
No. 2 (Salem Unit No. 2), located in Salem County, New Jersey.
    The proposed amendment would modify the requirements contained in 
the Salem Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications regarding the operation 
of the movable incore detector system. The proposed change would be a 
one-time change to allow use of the movable incore detector system for 
measurement of core peaking factors with less than 75% and greater than 
or equal to 50% of the detector thimbles available. The licensee has 
submitted this request in response to degradation of the Salem Unit No. 
2 movable incore detector system. There are currently 75.8% of the 
detector thimble locations available for use. The proposed changes 
would allow continued operation of Salem Unit No. 2 through the 
remainder of Cycle 11.
    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 changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The movable incore detector system is used only to provide 
confirmatory information on the neutron flux distribution of the 
core. This system does not provide any automatic control functions 
or protective functions for the operation of the plant. The only 
accident that the movable incore detector system could be involved 
in is the breaching of the detector thimbles which is bounded by the 
small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis. As the 
proposed changes do not involve any changes to the physical 
equipment or operation of the system, there is no increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The movable incore detector system provides a monitoring 
function that is not used for accident mitigation. The small break 
LOCA analysis continues to bound potential breaching of the system's 
detector thimbles. With less than 75% but greater than or equal to 
50% of the detector thimbles available, core peaking factor 
measurement uncertainties will be increased. This can impact core 
peaking factors and as a result could affect the consequences of 
certain accidents. However, any changes in the core peaking factors 
resulting from increased measurement uncertainties will be 
compensated for by conservative measurement uncertainty adjustments 
in the Technical Specifications to ensure that pertinent core design 
parameters are maintained. Sufficient additional penalty is added to 
the power distribution measurements such that this change will not 
impact the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
    There are no changes to the physical plant or operation of the 
movable incore systems as a result of the proposed changes. Since no 
changes are being made to the way the system is operated and no 
changes are being made to the system equipment, no new accidents or 
different accidents than previously analyzed are introduced by the 
proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The reduction in the minimum complement of equipment necessary 
for the operability of the movable incore detector system only 
impacts the monitoring and calibration functions of the system. 
Reduction of the number of available moveable incore detector 
thimbles to the 50% level does not significantly degrade the ability 
of the system to measure core power distributions. With less than 
75% but greater than or equal to 50% of the detector thimbles 
available, core peaking factor measurement uncertainties will be 
increased but will be compensated for by conservative measurement 
uncertainty adjustments in the Technical Specifications to ensure 
that pertinent core design parameters are maintained. Sufficient 
additional penalty is added to the power distribution measurements 
such that this change does not impact the safety margins that 
currently exist. Also, the reduction of available detector thimbles 
has negligible impact on the quadrant power tilt and core average 
axial power shape measurements and will not adversely affect excore 
detector calibration. Sufficient detector thimbles will be available 
to ensure that no quadrant will be unmonitored.
    Based on the above, the proposed changes will not result in a 
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

[[Page 33379]]

take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 22, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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, 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.
    Non-timely 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 April 10, 2000, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of May.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Fretz,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-12963 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P