[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49493-49496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24132]


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

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 Palisades Technical 
Specifications (TS) Administrative Controls section (Section 6) to 
adopt the format of NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications, 
Combustion Engineering Plants.'' The proposed amendment would also 
revise definition, safety limit, limiting condition for operation, and 
surveillance requirement TS associated with the revision of the 
administrative controls section, and would make editorial revisions to 
references throughout the TS to 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    The proposed amendment classified the changes as Less Restrictive, 
More Restrictive, Relocated, or Administrative.
    Proposed changes classified as less restrictive include revision of 
surveillance intervals for inservice inspection (ISI) of the chemical 
and volume control system regenerative heat exchanger, inspection of 
containment spray nozzles, and containment integrated leak rate 
testing; and revision or deletion of several administrative and 
reporting requirements.
    In addition to these less restrictive changes, the proposed 
amendment would also add new requirements, or revise certain existing 
requirements to result in additional operational restrictions 
(classified as ``More Restrictive'' changes); relocate selected 
requirements from the TS to other licensee-controlled documents 
(classified as ``Relocated'' changes); and move or clarify requirements 
within the TS without affecting their technical content (classified as 
``Administrative'' changes).
    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

[[Page 49494]]

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?
    ``Less Restrictive'' changes:
    The proposed changes to surveillance requirements allow longer 
surveillance testing intervals. Increasing the surveillance interval 
does not involve a change to the plant design or operation. Therefore, 
the proposed changes cannot increase the probability of a previously 
evaluated accident.
    Surveillance intervals established at the time of plant licensing 
were based on engineering judgement. Reviews of operating experience 
since that time have found that increases in the surveillance intervals 
affected by the proposed amendment can be accommodated with minimal 
increases in overall accident risk. Therefore, the proposed changes in 
surveillance intervals will not result in a significant increase in the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes which revise or delete administrative and 
reporting requirements do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they would not increase the probability or consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated.
    ``More Restrictive'' changes:
    These proposed changes add new requirements, or revise existing 
requirements to result in additional operational restrictions. Since 
the TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still 
contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes, 
``More Restrictive'' changes cannot involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    ``Relocated'' and ``Administrative'' changes:
    These proposed changes relocate requirements from TS to documents 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(a) or 50.59, or move or 
clarify requirements within the TS, without affecting their technical 
content. These changes do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they cannot involve a significant increase in 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?
    ``Less Restrictive'' changes:
    The proposed changes to surveillance requirements allow longer 
surveillance testing intervals. Increasing the surveillance interval 
does not involve a change to the plant design or operation. Therefore, 
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes which revise or delete administrative and 
reporting requirements do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    ``More Restrictive'' changes:
    These proposed changes add new requirements, or revise existing 
requirements to result in additional operational restrictions. Since 
the TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still 
contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes, 
``More Restrictive'' changes cannot create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    ``Relocated'' and ``Administrative'' changes:
    These proposed changes relocate requirements from TS to documents 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(a) or 50.59, or move or 
clarify requirements within the TS, without affecting their technical 
content. These changes do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they do 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?
    ``Less Restrictive'' changes:
    The proposed changes to surveillance requirements allow longer 
surveillance testing intervals. Increasing a surveillance interval does 
not involve a change to the plant design or operation. The margins of 
safety which may be impacted by the proposed changes involve the peak 
containment temperature and pressure and the offsite dose consequences 
of design-basis accidents. With respect to the regenerative heat 
exchanger, the proposed testing interval is consistent with the 
interval required by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, which is considered adequate to ensure 
system integrity; the increased probability of system leakage due to 
the increased testing interval is minimal; and any leakage would be 
retained within the primary containment. With respect to the 
containment spray nozzles, the increased probability of spray nozzle 
blockage due to the increased testing interval is minimal; and the 
containment air coolers provide a redundant means of controlling 
containment atmosphere temperature and pressure. With respect to the 
containment leak rate testing interval, the proposed change does not 
modify the containment performance criteria. Therefore, operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed changes which revise or delete administrative and 
reporting requirements do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    ``More Restrictive'' changes:
    These proposed changes add new requirements, or revise existing 
requirements to result in additional operational restrictions. Since 
the TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still 
contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes, 
``More Restrictive'' changes cannot involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety
    ``Relocated'' and ``Administrative'' changes:
    These proposed changes relocate requirements from TS to documents 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(a) or 50.59, or move or 
clarify requirements within the TS, without affecting their technical 
content. These changes do not alter plant design or operation. 
Therefore, they do 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 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

[[Page 49495]]

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 October 21, 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 John Hannon: 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.
    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 December 11, 1995, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 18, 1996, and September 3, 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.


[[Page 49496]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September 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. 96-24132 Filed 8-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P