Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66397

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–272]

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–

70 issued to Public Service Electric &

Gas Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit 1, located in

Salem County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

provide a one-time change to the

Technical Specifications to allow

purging of the containment during

Modes 3 (Hot Standby) and 4 (Hot

Shutdown) upon return to power from

the current outage (1R13). Because of

the replacement of the steam generators,

a large amount of new thermal

insulation was installed. Although this

insulation was pre-baked to minimize

off-gassing, previous Salem and other

industry experience indicates that there

could be significant off-gassing from the

insulation during the plant heat-up

resulting in an uninhabitable

containment atmosphere. The ability to

purge the containment during Modes 3

and 4 will provide the most safe,

efficient means of removing the offgasses from the insulation.

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.

Performance of containment purging as

proposed in this license change request does

not modify any primary system, secondary

system, or power supply system. The purging

equipment will be operated as it was

designed to be operated. In summary, no

accident initiator will be affected by the

proposed containment purging in Modes 3

and 4. For this reason, the activity does not

involve an increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated.

A conservative engineering evaluation was

performed to calculate an upper bound for

the dose consequences of a postulated LOCA

during Modes 3 or 4 prior to Unit 1 Cycle 13

power operation. The computations

performed evaluate a postulated release of

the entire core inventory. The release is

modeled as a ‘‘puff’’ release of core activity

that is transported directly to the

environment via the plant vent, taking no

credit for containment isolation. The release

is modeled as being instantaneous. This is

conservative because the highest atmospheric

dispersion factors are associated with the

initial release period (0 to 2 hours). Twentyfive percent of the core radioactive iodine

and one hundred percent of the core noble

gas inventories were assumed to be

immediately available for release from the

containment in accordance with Regulatory

Guide 1.4. Computations were developed for

whole body gamma dose, beta skin dose and

thyroid dose at the Unit 1 control room air

intakes, and whole body gamma dose and

thyroid dose at the exclusion area boundary

(EAB).

The evaluation results show that the whole

body dose and the thyroid dose at the EAB

are negligible compared to the 10 CFR 100

limits and that the doses are less than the

corresponding doses calculated for the design

basis LOCA.

The results also indicate that the thyroid

dose at the control room air intakes is

negligible when compared to the GDC 19 and

SRP 6.4 criteria and that the calculated whole

body dose is well within its limit. The

computed thyroid and whole body control

room doses are less than the corresponding

doses calculated for the design basis LOCA.

The computations indicate that the

calculated control room beta skin dose is

within the 75 rem limit for protective

eyewear use. In consideration of the

possibility of a LOCA, however low,

protective eyewear will be provided to

control room personnel during the purging

process.

Even though no credit is taken for

containment isolation in the dose

assessment, it should be noted that the valves

are expected to close when requested to do

so. The containment supply and exhaust

valves are tested within the surveillance

program to check valve stroke times.

Additionally, they are designed to close in

response to Containment Ventilation

Isolation and Phase A Isolation signals. This

response is also tested periodically. Each

purge penetration is protected by two

automatic isolation valves which are safety

related and leak tested. Therefore, although

no credit has been taken for isolation of the

purge supply and exhaust penetrations, the

valve closure will probably occur in the

event of a design basis accident in Modes 3

or 4.

Additionally, the actual time of purging

will be minimized, significantly reducing the

chance that the worst case of a LOCA while

purging could occur.

Plant effluent monitors provide the same

monitoring capability in Modes 3 and 4 as

they do in Modes 5 and 6 and the guidance

necessary to assess the radiological

consequences of any purge in Modes 3 and

4 is contained, and will be followed, in

existing plant procedures.

For the above reasons, it is concluded that

purging of the containment in Modes 3 and

4 during return from 1R13 does not involve

a significant increase in either the probability

or the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

As is noted above, no accident initiators

are affected by the proposed activity. The

safety function of the purge valves is

containment isolation. Performance of

containment purging as proposed in this

license change request does not modify any

primary system, secondary system, or power

supply system. Purging proposed in Modes 3

and 4 will be conducted and monitored in

the same manner as it is routinely carried out

in the shutdown modes. Therefore no new

‘‘accident initiators’’ are created by this

activity. One difference is considered in the

dose analysis. Although it is believed that

containment isolation would occur, the

conservative dose analysis, which takes no

credit for containment isolation, calculates

the doses for a LOCA during purging, to be

within regulatory guidance. For these

reasons, the activity will not create the

possibility of a new or different type of

accident from any previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Margin of safety is associated with the

confidence in the ability of the fission

product barriers (the fuel and fuel cladding,

the Reactor Coolant System pressure

boundary, and the containment) to limit the

level of radiation doses to the public. The

proposed purging of the containment will

occur at the end of an extended outage of

over 2 1/2 years in length. The level of decay

heat and activity in the reactor is very low

compared to the levels associated with full

power operations. For this reason, the

likelihood of fuel damage following a LOCA

occurring during the purging process is

significantly reduced. Additionally the

length of time that the purging will occur has

been limited. This reduces the likelihood of

the LOCA occurring during the purging

process.

Conservative dose assessment performed to

provide an upper bound shows that whole

body and thyroid dose to the public is

virtually non existent, and whole body and

thyroid dose to the control room personnel

is well within regulatory guidance and lower

tha[n] design basis accident analysis.

The dose computations indicate that the

calculated control room beta skin dose is
66398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

within the 75 rem limit for protective

eyewear use. In consideration of the

possibility of a LOCA, however low,

protective eyewear will be provided to

control room personnel during the purging

process.

For these reasons, the activity does not

involve a significant 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

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 January 20, 1998 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

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66399

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 December 11, 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 12th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33054 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

GPU Nuclear Corporation and Jersey

Central Power & Light Company;

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation,

et al. (the licensee), for operation of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(OCNGS) located in Ocean County, New

Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

OCNGS operating license and technical

specifications (TSs) to reflect the

registered trade name of ‘‘GPU Nuclear’’

under which the owner of OCNGS now

does business and to reflect the change

of the legal name of the operator of

OCNGS from GPU Nuclear Corporation

to GPU Nuclear, Inc. In addition, the

proposed action includes two minor

editorial corrections associated with the

name changes.

Specifically, license conditions 1.A,

1.E, 1.F, and 2 have been revised to

indicate Jersey Central Power & Light

Company doing business as (d/b/a) GPU

Energy and GPU Nuclear, Inc. as the

licensed operator of the facility and TSs

6.2.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 6.18, and 6.19

have been modified to change GPU

Nuclear Corp. to GPU Nuclear or GPU

Nuclear, Inc. as applicable.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated October 10, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

conform the license to reflect the

registered trade name under which the

owner of OCNGS now does business

and reflect the change in the legal name

of the operator of OCNGS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed

amendment to the OCNGS operating

license to reflect the trade name of the

owner and to reflect the change in the

legal name of the operator will have no

impact on the continued safe operation

of the facility. The corporate existence

of the owner and operator of OCNGS

will continue uninterrupted, and all

legal characteristics other than the legal

name of the operator will remain the

same. The State of incorporation,

registered agent, registered office,

directors, officers, rights or liabilities of

either the owner or the operator of

OCNGS have not and will not change as

a result of the amendment. Similarly,

there will be no change in the function

of either the owner or the operator of

OCNGS or the way they do business.

The owner’s financial responsibility for

OCNGS and the source of funds to

support the facility will remain the

same. There will be no alteration in any

of the existing licensing conditions

applicable to OCNGS, and no change to

GPU Nuclear Corporation’s ability to

comply with any licensing conditions or

any other obligation or responsibility

under the license. Specifically, the

owner of OCNGS will remain an electric

utility as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. The

funds accrued by the owner will

continue to be available to fulfill all

obligations related to OCNGS. The two

minor editorial changes relate to a name

change in the title of the President of

GPU Nuclear Corporation that will

similarly have no effect on the safe

operation or licensing conditions of the

facility.

Therefore, the proposed action will

not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of any

effluents that may be released offsite,

and there is no significant increase in

the allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the OCNGS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 12, 1997, the staff

consulted with the New Jersey State

official regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated October 10, 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