[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66397-66399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33054]



[[Page 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 off-gasses 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). Twenty-five 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

[[Page 66398]]

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,

[[Page 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