5860 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

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 January 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 Minneapolis Public Library,

Technology and Science Department,

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Beth A. Wetzel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects–III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3055 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–344]

Portland General Electric Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License 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–

1, issued to Portland General Electric

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Trojan Nuclear Plant located in

Rainier, Oregon.

The proposed amendment would

allow the licensee to process and handle

spent fuel pool debris in the Trojan Fuel

Building. 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.

By March 10, 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 Portland

State University Science Library, 951

SW Hall St., Portland OR. 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.

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 NonPower Reactors and Decommissioning

Project Directorate: 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

Douglas Nichols, 1 WTC 1301, 121 S.W.

Salmon Street, Portland OR, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5861

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 23, 1996 and

the licensee’s supplemental information

dated December 12, 1996, which are

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

Portland State University Science

Library, 951 SW Hall Street, Portland

Oregon.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3054 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company; Salem Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2; 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 and Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Salem County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

3.4.3, ‘‘Relief Valves,’’ for Salem Unit 1,

and TS 3.4.5, ‘‘Relief Valves,’’ for Salem

Unit 2, to ensure that the automatic

capability of the power operated relief

valves (PORV) to relieve pressure is

maintained when these valves are

isolated by closure of the block 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—2 -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 proposal does not involve any

physical changes to plant systems or

components. No new protection system logic

is proposed, and therefore, there is no

additional signal that can spuriously actuate

the Safety Injection (SI) system.

Consequently, there would be no change in

the probability of occurrence of the accident,

as previously evaluated in the [Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR. The

proposal is based upon a reanalysis of the

Inadvertent SI event to include a case that

demonstrates that the postulated event would

not be likely to lead to a more serious event.

Sustained water relief through a PORV can

result in a release of reactor coolant into

containment from the Pressurizer Relief

Tank. The release is limited, however, since

(1) it is the result of the SI System addition

and consequently cannot exceed the SI flow

rate at the PORV setpoint pressure, and (2)

the SI flow will eventually be terminated by

the operators. The dose consequences for an

Inadvertent SI is bounded by that which is

calculated for the spurious opening of a

pressurizer safety valve, Accidental RCS

Depressurization event, which is also a

Condition II event.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The Inadvertent Operation of the SI System

at Power analysis cases, reported in the

UFSAR, are analyzed to challenge fuel

integrity. Accordingly, the UFSAR analysis

cases produce transients that lead to a

reduction in pressurizer pressure, in order to

reduce the thermal margin. The results

indicate that no fuel damage is predicted.

The UFSAR analysis is revised in order to

evaluate the effects of an increase in

pressurizer pressure and other conditions

that could lead to water relief through the

pressurizer safety valves. Allowing water

relief from the pressurizer would not affect

the likelihood of fuel damage occurring

during this event. The results of the accident

reanalysis indicate that the pressurizer safety

valves would not discharge water, (a

condition for which they are not designed),

and consequently this event will not result in

the failure of a pressurizer safety valve due

to the discharge of water through the

pressurizer safety valves.

An evaluation of the effects of water relief

through the PORVs and downstream piping

have also been conducted. The results of the

accident reanalysis and the associated

evaluation indicate that a different type of

malfunction (e.g., a stuck open pressurizer

safety valve or failure of downstream piping

or components) would not be expected to

result from the analyzed event. Therefore, a

different type of accident would not be

expected to occur as a result of

implementation of this proposal.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

For this proposed change, the safety

analysis criterion, which the analysis of

Inadvertent SI Actuation at Power event is

required to satisfy, is to show that the

pressurizer safety valves would not open and

discharge water at any time during the event.

Satisfaction of this criterion indicates that the

safety margin is preserved by preventing the

Inadvertent Operation of the SI System at

Power event (a Condition II event) from

escalating into a more serious event, (a

Condition III event).

The proposal does not reduce the margin

of safety, since the results of the reanalysis

indicate that the applicable safety analysis

acceptance criterion, which is established to

protect the margin of safety, is satisfied.

The conclusions of the reanalyzed

Inadvertent Operation of the SI System at

Power event are based upon the assumption

that the operators, working according to

Emergency Operating Procedures, act within

ten minutes after the event occurs to make at

least one pressurizer PORV available by

opening its associated block valve. This is a

justifiable assumption, since simulator test

results indicate that operators have been

successful in accomplishing this procedure

within seven to nine minutes and this

requirement has been incorporated into the

procedures as a time critical step. Therefore,

relief capability is assured prior to the

pressurizer achieving a solid water condition.

The PORV surveillance requirements that

are currently contained in the Salem TSs

ensure that the automatic operation of the

PORVs is periodically tested.

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