Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Notices 52161

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–354]

Public Service Electric & Gas

Company (Atlantic City Electric

Company, Hope Creek Generating

Station); 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 &

Gas Company for operation of the Hope

Creek (HC) Generating Station located at

the licensee’s site in Salem County, New

Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

change Technical Specification 3/4.11.1,

‘‘Liquid Effluents—Concentration.’’ The

proposed change adds a requirement to

perform weekly sampling and monthly

and quarterly composite analyses of the

station service water system (SSWS)

when the reactor auxiliaries cooling

system (RACS) is contaminated.

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 fact that the RACS operating pressure

can be greater than the SSWS fluid pressures

at a[n] RACS heat exchanger does not

increase the probability of an accident

previously evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated

Final Safety Analysis Report]. Upon receipt

of a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] signal,

the RACS heat exchangers are automatically

isolated from the balance of the SSWS and

the RACS supply and return header

containment isolation valves automatically

close. The change only affects the

consequences of a malfunction of passive

components, such as seals and heat

exchanger tubing, cooled by the RACS

system. Since the plant systems associated

with these proposed changes will still be

capable of: (1) Meeting all applicable design

basis requirements; and (2) retain the

capability to mitigate the consequences of

accidents described in the HC UFSAR, the

proposed changes were determined to be

justified. While the consequences of

contaminated leakage from the RACS to

SSWS are increased slightly, these changes

will not involve a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The resulting estimated total effective dose

equivalent in UNRESTRICTED AREAS is

well within the limits of 10 CFR

20.1301(a)(1) and Hope Creek LCO [limiting

condition for operation] 3.11.1.2.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

Plant response to contaminated leakage

from the RACS to SSWS is the same as the

response to leakage from the safety

auxiliaries cooling system (SACS) to SSWS

which is already evaluated. Therefore the

proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The estimated total effective dose

equivalent in UNRESTRICTED AREAS

resulting from this proposed change is less

than 1 millirem and so is well within the

limits of 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and LCO

3.11.1.2.

Effluent concentration levels will remain

within the limits of LCO 3.11.1.1. Therefore

the proposed change does not involve a

significant reduction in a 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 Chief, Rules 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 November 5, 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

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
52162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Notices

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, 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 September 29, 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 Pennsville Public Library, 190 S.

Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey

08070.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2 Division of Reactor Projects—I/II Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 97–26402 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–354]

Public Service Electric & Gas

Company (Atlantic City Electric

Company, Hope Creek Generating

Station); 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 &

Gas Company for operation of the Hope

Creek Generating Station located at the

licensee’s site in Salem County, New

Jersey.

This proposed amendment would add

a surveillance requirement in Section 3/

4.5.1 to perform a monthly valve

position verification for each of the four

residual heat removal (RHR) cross-tie

valves.

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 proposed surveillance requirement to

perform a monthly valve position verification