[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