Public Service Electric and Gas Co.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity For a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Public Service Electric and Gas Co.; Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity For a Hearing

[Docket No. 50-354]

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 and Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station located in Salem

County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendment would add a new section, 3/4.10.8,

``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,'' and the Bases. The new

section would allow Hope Creek to remain in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4

with reactor coolant temperatures up to 212 deg.F to facilitate

inservice leak and hydrostatic testing.

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 present

below:

1. Will not involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are requested to allow inservice leak and

hydrostatic testing with the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 and

the average reactor coolant temperature up to 212 deg.F. The change

to allow inservice leak and hydrostatic testing in OPERATIONAL

CONDITION 4 will not increase the probability or the consequences of

an accident. The probability of a leak in the reactor coolant

pressure boundary during inservice leak and hydrostatic testing is

not increased by considering the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4.

The hydrostatic or inservice leak test is performed water solid or

near water solid, all rods in, and temperatures 212

deg.F. The stored energy in the reactor core will be very low and

the potential for failed fuel and a subsequent increase in coolant

activity above Technical Specification limits are minimal. In

addition, secondary containment will be operable and capable of

handling airborne radioactivity from leaks that could occur during

the performance of hydrostatic or inservice leak testing. Requiring

secondary containment to be operable will conservatively ensure that

potential airborne radiation from leaks will be filtered through the

Filtration, Recirculation and Ventilation System (FRVS), thereby

limiting radiation releases to the environment. Therefore, the

changes will not significantly increase the consequences of an

accident.

In the event of a large primary system leak, the reactor vessel

would rapidly depressurize, allowing the low pressure ECCS

subsystems to operate. The capability of the subsystems that are

required for OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 would be adequate to keep the

core flooded under this condition. Small system leaks would be

detected by leakage inspections before significant inventory loss

occurred. This is an integral part of the hydrostatic testing

program. Therefore, this change will not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Allowing the reactor to be considered in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4

during inservice leak or hydrostatic testing, with reactor coolant

temperature up to 212 deg.F, essentially provides an exception to

OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3 requirements, including operability of

primary containment and the full complement of redundant Emergency

Core Cooling Systems. The hydrostatic or inservice leak test is

performed water solid, or near water solid, all rods in, and

temperatures 212 deg.F. The stored energy in the reactor

core will be very low and the potential for failed fuel and a

subsequent increase in coolant activity above Technical

Specification limits are minimal. In addition, secondary containment

will be operable and capable of handling airborne radioactivity or

leaks that could occur.

The inservice leak or hydrostatic test conditions remain

unchanged. The potential for a system leak remains unchanged since

the reactor coolant system is designed for temperatures exceeding

500 deg.F with similar pressures. There are no alterations of any

plant systems that cope with the spectrum of accidents. The only

difference is that a different subset of systems would be utilized

for accident mitigation from those of OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3.

Therefore, this will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The proposed changes allow inservice leak and hydrostatic

testing to be performed with reactor coolant temperature up to 212

deg.F and the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. Since the reactor

vessel head will be in place, secondary containment integrity will

be maintained and all systems required in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4

will be operable in accordance with the Technical Specifications,

the proposed changes will not have any significant impact on any

design bases accident or safety limit. They hydrostatic or inservice

leak testing is performed water solid, or near water solid, all rods

in, and temperatures 212 deg.F. The stored energy in the

core is very low and the potential for failed fuel and a subsequent

increase in coolant activity would be minimal. The RPV would rapidly

depressurize in the event of a large primary system leak and the low

pressure injection systems normally operable in OPERATIONAL

CONDITION 4 would be adequate to keep the core flooded. This would

ensure that the fuel would not exceed the 2200 deg.F peak clad

temperature limit.

Moreover, requiring secondary containment, including isolation

capability, to be operable will assure that potential airborne

radiation can be filtered through the FRVS. This will assure that

doses remain well within the limits of 10CFR100 guidelines. Small

systems leaks would be detected by inspection before significant

inventory loss has occurred. Therefore, this special test exception

will not involve a significant reduction in 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, and should cite the publication date and page

number of the Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue,

Bethesda, 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

20555.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By April 15, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local

public document room located at 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 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 reply 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, 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 20555, 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 Charles L. Miller: 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, and to M.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 March 4, 1994, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 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 10th day of March 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James C. Stone,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-6076 Filed 3-15-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M