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

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