[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