[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5040-5042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2839]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-354]


Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic City 
Electric 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. 
NPF-57 issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic 
City Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Hope Creek 
Generating Station, located on the east shore of the Delaware River in 
Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey.
    The proposed amendment would change Hope Creek Generating Station 
Technical Specifications 4.6.2.2.b, ``Suppression Pool Spray,'' and 
4.6.2.3.b, ``Suppression Pool Cooling,'' to include flow through the 
RHR heat exchanger bypass line (in addition to the RHR heat exchanger) 
in the Suppression Pool Cooling and Suppression Pool Spray flow path 
used during RHR pump 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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. 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. Will not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
    The proposed amendment request changes Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) 4.6.2.3.b of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, Suppression 
Pool Cooling, and SR 4.6.2.2.b of TS 3.6.2.2, Suppression Pool 
Spray, to clarify that the intent of these specific SRs is to 
confirm Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump performance during 
Suppression Pool Cooling (SPC) and Suppression Pool Spray (SPS) 
operation. The proposed change revises the SRs to include the RHR 
heat exchanger bypass line, with the bypass valve closed, and the 
RHR heat exchanger in the SPC and SPS flow path used during 
performance of the surveillances.
    The RHR system is an accident mitigation system. The proposed 
changes do not change the operation or capabilities of the RHR 
system in either mode of operation. The proposed changes do not 
involve any physical changes to the RHR system. The proposed changes 
merely modify the acceptable flow path for the surveillance tests, 
the purpose of which is to verify pump performance in these modes of 
operation. Therefore, the proposed change to the SRs for the SPC and 
SPS mode of operation of the RHR system will not increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    Furthermore, the performance of the RHR system in any of its 
operational modes will be unchanged by the proposed change. The 
changes affect only the pump performance SRs for the SPC and SPS 
modes of RHR system operation. The surveillances being changed only 
modify the acceptable flow path used during the performance of the 
pump performance surveillances. The surveillances still verify that 
pump performance has not degraded to a point where the accident 
mitigation function of the system has not been compromised. 
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve an increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed change, a clarification of the SPC and SPS mode 
flow paths for pump performance testing, does not result in a 
modification of the RHR system, change the method of SPC or SPS 
operation, or alter the system's effectiveness. Suppression Pool 
Cooling and Containment Spray Cooling, of which Suppression Pool 
Spray is a part, are manually initiated actions. Existing procedures 
for the initiation of these two modes of operation are unchanged, 
including the requirement that the Low Pressure Coolant Injection 
valve is closed before the containment spray valves can be opened. 
There are no new failure modes created by the proposed changes and 
no new accident initiating events are created. Therefore, the 
proposed changes 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 do not change the operation of the RHR 
system in any of its modes of operation. The changes only clarify 
the fact that the purpose of the SRs is to confirm RHR pump 
performance through the most restrictive conditions of the flow path 
while operating in either the SPC or SPS modes. The changed 
surveillances still verify that pump performance has not degraded to 
a point where the original design basis can not be met. In order to 
assure the system meets its original design basis, adequate flow 
through the heat exchanger during surveillance testing will be 
maintained. Since the function of all of the operational modes of 
the RHR system are unaffected by the revised surveillance test flow 
path, the proposed changes will maintain the existing 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 15 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 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would 

[[Page 5041]]
result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the 
Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 
15-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. 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 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 11, 1996, 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 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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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, 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, 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 

[[Page 5042]]
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 February 5, 1996, 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 Pennsville Public Library, 190 S. 
Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David H. Jaffe,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-2839 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P