[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5861-5863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3053]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[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

[[Page 5862]]

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 
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 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 Salem Free Public Library, 112 West 
Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. 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: 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 January 31, 1997,

[[Page 5863]]

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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Leonard N. Olshan,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-3053 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P