ML20141K681
| ML20141K681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1997 |
| From: | Olshan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141K683 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705290301 | |
| Download: ML20141K681 (8) | |
Text
..
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) for operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Salem County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement 4.7.6.1.d.1 to indicate that the specified acceptance filter differential pressure (DP) is to be measured across the filter housing and to change the filter DP acceptance value from s 3.5 inches water gauge to s.2.70 inches water gauge.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission 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 sould 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 9705290301 970523 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
\\
. l 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.
l The [ Control Room Emergency Air Conditioning System] CREACS filter train is provided for post-accident atmospheric cleanup of the control room air volume in order to limit doses to control room personnel to less than the limits prescrioed by 10CFR50 Appendix A. Criterion 19.
The CREACS does not communicate with the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and does not penetrate the Containment.
The environmental controls portion of the system (i.e., cooling coil, fans, ductwork and associated dampers, and filtration capability) are not affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, cont'rol room temperature, humidity, air distribution and cleanliness requirements will continue to be maintained within acceptance limits. As such, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is unchanged.
The change to the Surveillance Test boundary requires that the pressure dro) across all elements in the filter train be evaluated, tiereby ensuring that the CREACS filter is maintained 1
in a condition which would not restrict post-accident CREACS flow below acceptable levels. The change to the filter DP acceptance limit reallocates design margin associated with filter performance to CREACS fan performance in the control room pressurization mode.
As such, infiltration of potentially contaminated air is limited to that presently in the dose analysis.
ine Technical Specification maximum allowable CREACS flow rate, minimum allowable [high-efficiency particulate air] HEPA and Charcoal Adsorber removal efficiencies, and post-accident control room pressurization requirements are not affected by this change. As such, the consequences of previously evaluated accidents are unchanged.
2.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The CREACS does not communicate with the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and does not penetrate the Containment. The proposed changes do not require any modification to the CREACS or its support systems. The design basis safety function of the CREACS i
~
' 1s unaffected by the proposed changes.
The environmental controls portion of the CREACS (i.e., cooling coil, fans, ductwork and associated damaers, and filtration capability) are not affected by the proposed c1anges. As such control room temperature, humidity and air distribution requirements will continue to be maintained within acceptance limits. The maximum allowable CREACS flow rate and control room DP requirements imaosed by the Technical Specifications are not changed by t11s proposal.
For these reasons. the not created. possibility of a new or different kind of accident is 3.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
A new acceptance limit for filter DP (i.e., cleanliness) has been proposed. The change to the filter DP acceptance reallocates design margin associated with filter performance to CREACS fan performance in the control room pressurization mode.
Planned modifications to reduce control room leakage paths, together with the proposed changes to the CREACS filter DP Surveillance Test acceptance limit, ensure that control room pressur.12ation requirements and CREACS filter functionality are maintained during post-accident operation.
The environmental controls portion of the system (i.e., cooling coil, fans, ductwork and associated dampers, and filtration capability) are not affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, control room temperature, humidity, air distribution and cleanliness requirements will continue to be maintained within acceptance limits. The proposed changes to the Surveillance Test boundary and acceptance limits maintain a conservative Operability standard for the CREACS filter train. Acce)tance limits and test methods specified for the HEPA filter and Clarcoal Adsorber efficiencies are not affected by this proposal.
Based on the above discussions, it is concluded that the margin of safety has not been reduced.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three etendards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff propm es to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commissicn 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 l
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 6022. 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 1 Street. NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
i
1
. By June 30, 1997
. 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 fila 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 chould consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street. NW., Washington, DC, and at the local publ'ci 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 Comission 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
1
- f. l be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition i
i should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the I
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 i
may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days j
prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such j
an amerded petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
i j
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the l
l 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 4
specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.
f In. addition. the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of i
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion I
which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in I
proving the contentiori at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide I
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.
1 Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment
)
under consideration, The contention nast 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 j
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
I l
l
^
j o
1
- Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting isave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-exe.nine witnesses.
l 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 imediately 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 Comission Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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
- 4 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 20555-1 0001, and to Mark 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 Comission, 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated May 14, 1997, which is available for public inspection at j
the Comission'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 23rd day of May 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d
v Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
--,.