[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36271-36273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17609]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 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-20 issued to Consumers Energy Company (the licensee) for operation
of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would revise Section 3.1.1c of the Technical
Specifications (TS), Appendix A of the Operating License for the
Palisades Nuclear Plant, to change the minimum required primary coolant
system flow. The currently specified value is 140.7x106 lb/
hr [pounds per hour] or greater, when corrected to 532 deg.F. The
licensee proposed to revise the TS to specify a value of greater than
or equal to 352,000 gpm [gallons per minute], which is equivalent to
approximately 135x106 lb/hr, when corrected to 532 deg.F.
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:
a. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the minimum reactor vessel flow does not
alter the assumed initiators to any analyzed event. Rather,
specification of a minimum reactor vessel flow provides assurance
that sufficient cooling will take place during normal and accident
operating conditions of the reactor. Therefore the probability of an
accident previously evaluated has not been increased by this
proposed change.
Each of the applicable Palisades FSAR [Final Safety Analysis
Report] Chapter 14 accident analyses have been evaluated with
respect to the proposed reduction in minimum reactor vessel flow
rate. The results of these analyses, which have been incorporated
into the Palisades Cycle 14 Disposition and Analysis of Standard
Review Plan (SRP) Events, demonstrate that the acceptance criteria
for each of the events continues to be met.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed change to TS section 3.1.1c would not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
b. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes provide a reduced requirement for PCS
[primary coolant system] flow through the reactor vessel than
currently exists in the TS. The change does not, however, involve
any alteration in the plant configuration (no new or different type
[[Page 36272]]
of equipment will be installed) or make changes in the methods
governing normal plant operation. However, these changes are
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing
basis. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed change to TS section 3.1.1c would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
c. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change to the minimum reactor vessel flow has been
evaluated against each of the applicable Palisades FSAR Chapter 14
accident analyses. Reducing the assumed minimum reactor vessel flow
did not result in a significant change (per 10 CFR 50.46) in the
results of the Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) analyses. Reducing the assumed minimum reactor
vessel flow did not result in penetration of TS DNB [departure from
nucleate boiling] limits or additional fuel failures for non-LOCA
events. Reducing the assumed minimum reactor vessel flow did not
result in a change in the results of the LOCA or Main Steam Line
Break containment response analyses. Reducing the assumed minimum
reactor vessel flow did not result in a change to the radiological
consequences of the SRP events with respect to 10 CFR 100 offsite
dose or SRP 6.4 control room habitability requirements. Therefore,
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change to
TS 3.1.1c 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 by close of business 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. 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 August 3, 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 Van Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland,
Michigan 49423-3698. 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
[[Page 36273]]
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 close of business on the above date. A copy of the petition should
also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Judd L. Bacon,
Esquire, Consumers Energy Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson,
Michigan 49201, 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 17, 1998, and supplement dated
June 23, 1998, which are 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 Van Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland, Michigan 49423-3698.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-17609 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
