[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44348-44350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21937]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket NO. 50-255]
Consumers Power 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-20 issued to Consumers Power Company (the licensee) for operation
of the Palisades Plant located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would revise the requirements of technical
specification (TS) 3.1.9.3 to permit a filled refueling cavity to serve
as a back-up means of decay heat removal.
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. The NRC staff has
reviewed the licensee's analysis against the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c). The staff's review is presented below.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes emulate the Standard Technical Specifications
by allowing use of a filled reactor cavity as the required backup
capability for decay heat removal; only an operable train of shutdown
cooling is currently allowed to fulfill this function. The decay heat
removal backup capability need not provide forced flow through the
reactor core. This is because Action 2.a of TS 3.1.9.3 currently
requires discontinuation of all operations involving a reduction in
primary coolant system (PCS) boron concentration if loss of the
inservice system caused flow to be reduced below that required. The
proposed changes do not affect the requirements for the inservice train
of shutdown cooling. Since the proposed changes do not affect the
requirements for equipment that would be in operation, allowing use of
an alternate decay heat removal backup capability cannot alter any
plant operating conditions, equipment settings, or capabilities or
operating equipment. Therefore, operating the facility in accordance
with the proposed changes would not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
As discussed in the response to question 1, above, the proposed
changes would not affect the plant configuration or the capability of
equipment required to be in operation. The changes simply allow
substitution of one means of decay heat removal for another as a backup
capability. The equipment used as a backup capability is only actuated
after occurrence of an event that disables the decay heat removal
equipment that is required to be in operation. Because the backup
capability for decay heat removal, either as currently required or as
proposed, would not be placed into service until after an event had
occurred, operating the facility in accordance with the proposed
changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
The objectives of TS 3.1.9.3 are to ensure that the PCS is mixed by
forced flow to avoid the potential for development of pockets of
unborated or diluted coolant, and to ensure that sufficient decay heat
removal capability is available to withstand loss of the operating
decay heat removal system due to equipment failure or personnel error.
These objectives are fulfilled by requiring (1) forced flow through the
reactor core, (2) one operable system capable of decay heat removal to
be in operation, and (3) another operable system capable of decay heat
removal to provide a backup capability.
The proposed changes allow use of a filled refueling cavity as the
required backup capability for decay heat removal; only an operable
train of shutdown cooling is currently allowed to fulfill this
function. The proposed changes do not affect the requirements for flow
through the reactor core or the inservice train of shutdown cooling.
The decay heat removal backup capability need not provide forced flow
through the reactor core. This is because Action 2.a of TS 3.1.9.3
requires discontinuation of all operations involving a reduction in PCS
boron concentration if loss of the inservice system caused flow to be
reduced below that required. Since the proposed changes only allow
substitution of an alternate method of meeting the third objective for
that currently specified, all objectives of the specification are still
met. Therefore, operating the facility in accordance with the proposed
changes would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
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
[[Page 44349]]
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
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 September 27, 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 Van Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland,
Michigan 49423. 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: 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 Mark Reinhart, Acting Director, Project
Directorate III-1: 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 20555-0001, and to Judd L. Bacon, Esquire
Consumers Power Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan
49201, attorney for the licensee.
[[Page 44350]]
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 January 5, 1996, as supplemented July
12, 1996, 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 1996.
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. 96-21937 Filed 8-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
