[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55887-55889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22198]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311]


PSEG Nuclear LLC; 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 Nos. 
DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC, (the licensee) for 
operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
(Salem) located in Salem County, New Jersey.
    The proposed amendment would change the Salem Technical 
Specifications (TSs) requirements for fuel decay time prior to 
commencing movement of irradiated fuel. TS 3/4.9.3 ``Decay Time'' would 
be revised to allow fuel movement in the containment to commence 100 
hours after the reactor becomes subcritical between October 15th 
through May 15th. If refueling occurs between May 16th and October 
14th, the licensee would use the existing TS requirement of 168 hours 
decay time prior to commencing fuel movement. If approved, the TS 
change would be valid through 2010. PSEG intends to re-analyze its 
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) heat load conditions before this date to 
determine required licensing actions beyond 2010.
    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed license amendment would allow fuel assemblies to be 
removed from the reactor core and be stored in the Spent Fuel Pool 
in less time after subcriticality than currently allowed by the TSs. 
Decreasing the decay time of the fuel affects the isotopic make-up 
of the fuel to be offloaded as well as the amount of decay heat that 
is present from the fuel at the time of offload. The proposed 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. The accident 
previously evaluated that is associated with the proposed license 
amendment is the fuel handling accident. Allowing the fuel to be 
offloaded as early as 100 hours after subcriticality does not impact 
the manner in which the fuel is offloaded. The accident initiator is 
the dropping of the fuel assembly. Since earlier offload does not 
effect fuel handling, there is no increase in the probability of 
occurrence of a fuel handling accident. The time frame in which the 
fuel assemblies are moved has been evaluated against the 10 CFR 
50.67 dose limits for members of the public, licensee personnel and 
control room. Additionally, the guidance provided in Reg. Guide 
1.183 was used for the selective application of Alternative Source 
Term [(AST)]. All dose limits are met with the reduced core offload 
times.
    During the period from October 15th through May 15th up to and 
including the year 2010, a fully radiated 193 element core can be 
off-loaded to a Spent Fuel Pool with a 100-hour in-vessel decay, 
rather than a 168 hour decay, because the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 
System is capable of maintaining both pools below 180 deg.F. The 
continued implementation of the Spent Fuel Pool Integrated Decay 
Heat Management Program provides the administrative controls 
required to maintain SFP temperatures below the 180 deg.F limit.
    The accident previously evaluated that is associated with fuel 
movement is the Fuel Handling Accident. With this proposed 
amendment, the selected characteristics of the AST and the [Total 
effective dose equivalent (TEDE)] criteria become the design basis 
for the Fuel Handling Accident at Salem Units 1 and 2. Thus, there 
is no significant increase in consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not increase the 
probability of occurrence or the consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated are not increased.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    Response: No.

[[Page 55888]]

    The proposed license amendment would allow core offload to occur 
in less time after subcriticality, which affects the isotopic make-
up of the fuel to be offloaded as well as the amount of decay heat 
that is present from the fuel at the time of offload. The isotopic 
makeup of the fuel assemblies and the amount of decay heat produced 
by the fuel assemblies do not currently initiate any accident. A 
change in the isotopic makeup of the fuel at the time of core 
offload or an increase in the decay heat produced by the fuel being 
offloaded will not cause the initiation of any accident. The 
accident previously evaluated that is associated with fuel movement 
is the fuel handling accident. There is no change to the manner in 
which fuel is being handled or in the equipment used to offload or 
store the fuel. The effects of the additional decay heat load have 
been analyzed. The analysis demonstrated that the existing Spent 
Fuel Pool cooling system and associated systems under worst-case 
circumstances would maintain the integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool. 
The proposed method of offload does not create a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety pertinent to the proposed changes is the 
dose consequences resulting from a fuel handling accident. The 
shorter decay time prior to fuel movement has been evaluated against 
10 CFR Part 50.67 and all limits continue to be met. In addition, 
the integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool has been demonstrated with the 
additional decay heat load. As stated above, the changes in isotopic 
makeup and additional heat load do not impact any safety settings 
and do not cause any safety limit to not be met. In addition, the 
integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool is maintained.
    The time frame in which the fuel assemblies are moved has been 
evaluated against the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits for members of the 
public, licensee personnel and control room. Additionally, the 
guidance provided in Reg. Guide 1.183 was used for the selective 
application of Alternative Source Term. Calculations performed 
conclude that expected dose limits following a Fuel handling 
Accident are met with the proposed decay time prior to commencing 
fuel movement.
    During the period from October 15th through May 15th up to and 
including the year 2010, a fully radiated 193 element core can be 
off-loaded to a Spent Fuel Pool with a 100-hour in-vessel decay, 
rather than a 168 hour decay, because the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 
System is capable of maintaining both pools below 180 deg.F. The 
continued implementation of the Spent Fuel Pool Integrated Decay 
Heat Management Program provides the administrative controls 
required to maintain SFP temperatures below the 180 deg.F limit.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a 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 Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By September 30, 3002, 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,\1\ 
which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in 
accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. Those provisions 
are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those 
provisions are as follows: ``In all other circumstances, such ruling 
body or officer shall, in ruling on--
    (1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, 
consider the following factors, among other things:
    (i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding.
    (ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
    (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in 
the proceeding on the petitioner's interest .
    (2)The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a 
contention if:
    (i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in 
the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 55889]]

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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of 
the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to 
intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-
1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the petition for 
leave to intervene and request for hearing should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in 
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested 
that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be 
sent 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 June 28, 2002, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of August, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Fretz,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-22198 Filed 8-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P