[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51147-51150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24574]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating License 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 the Consumers Energy Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County,
Michigan.
The proposed amendment would represent a full conversion from the
current Technical Specifications (CTS)
[[Page 51148]]
to a set of improved Technical Specifications (ITS) based on the
Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) in NUREG-1432,
``Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants,''
Revision 1, dated April 1995. The ISTS in NUREG-1432 have been
developed through working groups composed of both NRC staff members and
industry representatives, and have been endorsed by the NRC staff as
part of an industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the
technical specifications for nuclear power plants. As part of this
submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (Final Policy Statement),
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to
the CTS, and, using NUREG-1432 as a basis, developed a proposed set of
ITS for Palisades. The criteria in the Final Policy Statement were
subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a
rule change that was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995
(60 FR 36953) and became effective on August 18, 1995.
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes,
and less restrictive changes.
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting,
renumbering, and rewording processes reflect the attributes of NUREG-
1432 and do not involve technical changes to the CTS. The proposed
changes include (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-
1432 bracketed information (information that must be supplied on a
plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b)
identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c)
changing NUREG-1432 section wording to conform to existing licensee
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events.
Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in technical
specifications. Relocated changes are those CTS requirements that do
not satisfy or fall within any of the four criteria specified in the
Final Policy Statement and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-
controlled documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in its January 26, 1998, application. The affected structures, systems,
components, or variables are not assumed to be initiators of analyzed
events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient events.
The requirements and surveillances for these affected structures,
systems, components, or variables will be relocated from the CTS to
administratively controlled documents such as the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR), the ITS Bases, the Operating Requirements Manual (ORM),
or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these documents
will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate and
acceptable change control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC
review and approval. In addition, the affected structures, systems,
components, or variables are addressed in existing surveillance
procedures that are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed
changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1432 that the
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, the licensee has provided an
explanation of why it has concluded that retaining the more restrictive
requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the facility
because of specific design features of the plant.
Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is
provided. The more significant less restrictive requirements are
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the technical
specifications may be appropriate. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that
have evolved from technological advancements and operating experience,
or (c) resolution of Owners Groups' comments on the ISTS. Generic
relaxations contained in NUREG-1432 were reviewed by the NRC staff and
found to be acceptable because they are consistent with current
licensing practices and NRC regulations. The licensee's design
information will be reviewed to determine if the specific design and
licensing bases are consistent with the technical bases for the model
requirements in NUREG-1432, thus providing a basis for the ITS, or if
relaxation of the requirements in the CTS is warranted based on the
justifications provided by the licensee.
These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an
analyzed accident or transient event.
In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are different from the
requirements in both the CTS and the ISTS. These proposed beyond-scope
issues to the ITS conversion are as follows:
1. ITS 3.0.3 and related specifications that specify time to reach
MODE 4: The CTS do not include an equivalent classification to ISTS
MODE 4. To maintain consistency with the ISTS, the licensee proposed a
definition for MODE 4 and a time limit to reach the new MODE 4. The
proposed time limit is greater than the time limit in the ISTS.
2. ITS 3.3.1: The frequency of the channel functional test
associated with certain reactor protective system and engineered safety
features instrumentation was proposed to be increased from 31 to 92
days.
3. ITS 3.4.1: The CTS require restoration of reactor inlet
temperature within 30 minutes if the temperature limit is exceeded. The
proposed ITS would require the primary coolant system (PCS) cold leg
temperature (equivalent to the CTS reactor inlet temperature) and
additional specified parameters to be restored to within the specified
limits within 2 hours.
4. ITS 3.4.1: The proposed ITS surveillance requirement regarding
verification of PCS total flow rate differs from the ISTS by allowing
additional methods of flow measurement other than the ``precision heat
balance'' specified in the ISTS to be used.
5. ITS 3.4.6: The proposed ITS actions for PCS loops while in MODE
4 contain several wording deviations from the ISTS.
6. ITS 3.4.10: The proposed ITS applicability modes for pressurizer
[[Page 51149]]
safety valves differ from both the ISTS and the CTS.
7. ITS 3.4.14: The proposed ITS requirements for isolation valves
in high pressure lines with an inoperable pressure isolation valve
differ from both the ISTS and the CTS.
8. ITS 3.5.3: The CTS does not contain any ECCS requirements when
the reactor is not critical. The proposed ITS requirements differ from
those in the ISTS.
9. ITS 3.6.6, 3.7.5, 3.7.7, and 3.7.8: The proposed requirements
for the containment cooling, auxiliary feedwater, component cooling
water, and service water systems differ from both the CTS and ISTS. The
proposed specifications would permit one or more trains of these
systems to be inoperable, provided the systems are capable of providing
at least 100 percent of the required flow or cooling capacity. This
approach is similar to ISTS 3.5.2.
10. ITS 3.7.12: The proposed applicability requirements for the
fuel handling area ventilation system differ from both the CTS and
ISTS.
11. ITS 3.8.4: The proposed action requirements for DC electrical
sources differ from both the CTS and ISTS.
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.
By October 21, 1999, 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 a 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.
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 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 Mr. Arunas T. Udrys, 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) (l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated January 26, 1998, as supplemented April
30, September 14, October 12, and November 9, 1998, and March 1, March
22, March 30, April 7, May 3, June 4, June 11, June 17, July 19, and
July 30, 1999, 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 15th day of September 1999.
[[Page 51150]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-24574 Filed 9-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P