ML17299B066
| ML17299B066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1986 |
| From: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17299B065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603040476 | |
| Download: ML17299B066 (44) | |
Text
~ iV
\ ~
UNITED STATES OP AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the matter of )
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY, et al., ) DOCKET NO. STN 50-529
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear )
Generating Stat1on, Un1t 2) )
)
)
VIEWS AND COMMENTS ON PETITION PILED BY COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY EDUCATION
- 1. INTRODUCTION By letter, dated February 5, 1986, the Office of T
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) prov1ded licensee Arizona Public Service Company (APS) with a copy of a petition, dated January 12, 2986 (filed January 17, 1986) and an addendum thereto dated January 20, 1986 (filed Januaxy 21, 1986) which had been submit-ted to the D1xector, NRR, pursuant to 10 CPR 2.206(a), by the Coalition for Responsible Energy Educat1on (CREE). Such letter invited APS to express any views or comments xespecting the petition that APS wished the Director to consider 1n arriving at a decision on the petit1on. The following views and comments are submitted in response to such invitat1on.
gbO22+
g~(>g04047b ~OPQQQQ
@DR ADO' @DR Q
~ I ~, ~
~
There appear to be three legal 1ssues presented .by the Petition. The first relates to the relief requested, the second, to the appropriateness of the adgudicatory process to deal with matters alleged, and the third, to the reopening of the issue of techn1cal qual1fications.
2.1 Relief Re ested.
Paragraph 1 of the Petition states that "The petition requests service upon Arizona Publ1c Service Company/Arizona Nuclear Power Prospect (APS/ANPP) of an order to show cause, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, why the low power license of PVNGS-2 should not be suspended and further l icensing act 1vi ty for PVNGS-2 deferred, pending completion of the requested regulatory and corrective actions, and a proceeding initiated under 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)."
On its face, this statement of relief requested appears to comply with the Commission's regulations and to comport with the standards of fairness required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the due process clause of the United States Constitut1on. In short, the statement requests the 1nitiation of an ad5udicatory
l t
~ ~ ~ ( ql ~
"show cause" proceed1ng to determine whether or not the requested administrative action, i.e., suspension of a license, should be taken.
However, th1s opening statement is misleading and at odds w1th the relief which the petition actually seeks.
Paragraph 78 of the Petition (page 80) baldly states the request that the PVNGS-2 license be suspended without an hearin ! Zt is impossible to conceive of a more blatant violation of the basic rules of fairness mandated by law, absent some 1ncontrovertible need for emergency act1on which is not present here.
Citat1ons to statutory provisions and Judicial deci-sions respecting the Commission's d1scretionary authority to
'uspend licenses are irrelevant to the question of whether it can do so without any hearing. Similarly, citations respecting the placement of the burden of proof in "show cause" proceedings are irrelevant to the Commiss1on's authority to suspend licenses without a hearing.
Clearly, the Commission may take emergency action when there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public. But, such circumstances are not present here, nor does the petition offer any bases on which the Commission could take
the drast1c action requested. Assuming for purposes of argument that all of the allegations and conclusions in the Petition are true (and they are nct) and that a hr1ma facie cane hae been made
)ustifying initiation of~ a "show cause" proceeding (and it has not), no evidence has been presented to )ustify the drastic emergency action of license suspension without a hearing.
2.2 Ad udicator Proceed1n s vs. Enforcement Processes The Petition puts at issue the question of the role of the adgudicatory process in the enforcement of the Commission's 11censes and regulations. In essence, the Petition complains that "previous 1nspection and enforcement act1vities .were inadequate" and questions whether such activities are likely to uncover "general1zed organizational inadequacies." (Petn para. 22 at p. 11) But nowhere in the Petition is it explained how or why the adgudicatory process can cure the alleged inadequacies in a more effective way. Indeed, the Petition acknowledges that the adjudicatory forum 1s not the appropriate mechanism to address the questions raised since it proposes init1ation of a Special Management Inspection and Oversight Team" and other inspect1on and enforcement actions as may be deemed necessary. (Petn para. 78 at pp. 52-53)
It is difficult to discern the basis for CREE's complaint against the Off1ce of Inspection and Enforcement
I
'7 I
1 4
(IRE) . Certainly, almost all of the facts and conclusions alleged in the Petition stem directly from inspection reports and notices of violations issued by ISE or from the latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report> which in ma)or measure is based on analyses of such inspections and notices. Also certainly, CREE ought not complain about the increase in the number of resident inspectors from 3 to 5 during the last SALP period, nor the ten-fold increase in inspection activities at Palo Verde over the past 6 years. The following table illustrates the dramatic increase in inspections at Palo Verde. It also gives some perspective of the improvement in the effectiveness of Palo Verde management over the past two years.
INSPECTION INSPECTION HOURS PER HOURS VIOLATIONS VIOLATION 1980 1120 187 1981 1343 269 1982 1044 209 1983 5503 204 1984 7023 292 1985 12051 22 547 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, Syste-matic Assessment of Licensee Performance for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Report Nos. 50-528/85-36, 50-529/85-38, and 50-530/85-28, Evaluation Period 4/1/84 9/30/85, Assessment Conducted 11/14/85.
In any event, however, an ad Judicatory show cause proceeding against a licensee 1s not the proper mechan1sm for asserting a complaint against ISE. In fact, it is unlikely that CREE for all of its self-righteous posturing could establish standing to challenge any office of NRC as to its performance of 1ts responsibilit1es. And even 1f it could es'tablish standing, it could not establish that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has Jurisdiction to order any NRC office in the perfor-mance of its duties.
To the extent that CREE professes to have some magical measure of licensee performance (see Petn. para. 68 at page 46) that is better than the well-established SALP reviews on which CREE rel1es so heavily, 1ts remedy lies in the rulemaking process not in an adjudicatory hearing.
2.3 Reo enin the Issue of Technical ualifications A challenge respecting the competence of licensee management is nothing more than a challenge of licensee technical qualifications. This matter has already been explored fully by NRC, and APS has been found to be technically qual1fied. The opportunity to raise such an issue has long since expired.
Clearly, the burden upon CREE to reopen this issue now is heavy indeed.2 But the Petition does not address in any manner the established criteria which must be satisfied to warrant reopening.3 Presumably, if it were to have done so, the argument would have been made that reopening is )ustified, because the "new information" obta1ned from the SALP Report and other inspection reports would have led to a different result than had been reached initially. However, such an argument, if made, must fail, because the "new information" does not meet the required standard.
When one looks at the latest SALP Report, one finds clearly stated at the outset that:
"Overall, we f1nd that your performance of licensed act1vities at the Palo Verde Site was considered to be satisfactory during this assessment period;"
This conclusion, which is borne out, by the ratings assigned in 19 funct1onal areas, provides no basis for reopening f
the issue of APS'echnical qualifications. In every functional Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al., 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978).
The citations and discussion in the Petition respecting the authority of the NRC to conduct "discretionary" hear1ngs simply beg the question of the standards for reopening issues that have been previously decided.
area the per f ormance rating was Category 2 or better. By definition, the rating in Category 2 means that:
Licensee management attention and involvement is evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee
-resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect to operat1onal safety and construction quality is being ach1eved."
In light of the conclus1ons from the SALP Report, the Petition simply does not meet the standards required for reopen-ing a proceeding.
- 3. Other Relief Re ested.-.
3.1 S stems Interactions and Reliabilit Studies.
One 1tem of relief requested by the Petition is the complet1on of systems 1nteractions and rel1ability studies as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in its report to the Commission dated December 15,.
1981. (Petn para. 78 at pp. 52-53) In its discussion of this matter, (Petn para. 56 at pp. 34-35) 1t is apparent that CREE relied solely upon newspaper accounts of the ACRS meeting on
0 November 7, 1985, in arriving at the conclusion that the failure to make such studies reflected upon APS management competence.
If, instead of rely1ng upon unreliable newspaper accounts, CREE had performed some simple research, such as looking at Supplement No. 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER Supp.') or examining the transcript of the ACRS meeting, it would have become 'apparent that the decision to defer the additional studies as recommended by ACRS was not made by APS management. Rather, it was a reasoned decision del1berately arrived at by the Regulatory Staff on the basis that the focus and direction of the studies should await resolution of Unresolv-ed Safety Issue (USI) A-,17 Systems Interaction.
Clearly, this well-reasoned decision of the Regulatory Staff has no relevance to APS'anager1al competence, and the 1naccurate newspaper account provides no basis for modifying that decision.
3.2 Resolut1on of Auxiliar Pressurizer S ra S stem APSS Issues".
The Petition also requests that an "acceptable perman-ent resolution of all outstanding APSS issues [be required] prior to the re1nstatement of the PVNGS-2 operat1ng license." (Petn para. 78, p. 53) Aga1n, the basis for this requested relief
appears to rest on newspaper accounts of the ACRS meeting. (Petn para. 57, p. 35-36)
The fact is that the modifications which enhanced the reliability of the APSS constitute the final resolution of the APSS issues in a manner that meets all regulatory requirements appl1cable to Palo Verde -- and the ACRS so understood these facts. (ACRS transcript, p. 51, Meeting Nov. 7, 1985)
Apparently, CREE has confused the resolut1on of the APSS issues with the open question of whether or not pressure operated relief values (PORV') should be required on all Combustion Eng1neering plants. The Commission has decided, with the concurrence of ACRS, that the resolution of th1s quest1on should await the resolution of USI A-45 Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements. It is our understanding that the Regula-tory Staff's report on this generic issue 1s scheduled for completion in 1986.
\
- 4. Mana ement Com etence of APS.
Response to each and every allegation and conclusion asserted in the Petition does not appear to be warranted. For the most part they stem from recommendations and criticisms found 1n the SALP Report. The point has already been made that the SALP Report does not support CREE's contentions.
10
But, perhaps the best perspective of APS management competence is found in the statement made by Jesse Crews, Senior Reactor Engineer for Region V, to ACRS on November 7, 1985, respecting the operating experience during the Unit 1 power ascension program. (Trans. pp. 40-44, ACRS Meeting, 11/7/85; see also Trans. pp. 41-55, ACRS Subcommittee Meeting, 11/5/85) As to operating crews, the conclusions were that the "experience reflects well on the training and qualifications of the operating crew", and "overall, we rate performance of the operating crew quite high."
As to the technical support organization, Mr. Crews concluded that "performance has been acceptable" and added management has taken steps to improve upon the utiliza-that'licensee tion of the technical staff as the testing program has progressed and experience has been gained... their utilization of performance has improved, as experience has been gained, particu-larly in the, area of post-trip and post-event review and evaluation."
As to management, Mr. Crews stated: "We have been generally satisfied with the performance, and there has again been steady improvement. Management has demonstrated a healthy attitude toward critically examining the performance of the programs and the managing systems upon which they must rely for effective control for operational activities."
11
The final conclusion reached by Mr. Crews was:
"The improvements, which have come about as the result of Unit 1 experience, we feel, should fully expect to result in measurable improvements in the overall performance of Unit 2 Et would be without reason to find that this record of achievements and improvements was the result of anything except good, competent management.
The observations reported by Region V to ACRS are supported by comparing the most recent SALP Report with the preceding report. The comparison shows that the only Category 3 ratings in the earlier SALP Report (Preoperational Testing and Startup Testing) improved to Categories 1 and 2, respectively.
12
f l
I
~ ~ ~
The number of Category 1 ratings doubled from 2 to 4.4 Add1tion-ally, improved trends were observed with respect to three Category 2 ratings. In only one area Emergency Preparedness was a decline in the SALP rating reported from Category 1 to Category 2. However, in th1s area the latest SALP report concluded "based on the licensee's response to the identified program weaknesses and performance the October 2, 1985 exercise, some 1mprovement has been noted." Th1s improvement trend is also confirmed by Inspection Report Nos. 50-528/85-34 and 50-529/85-34, issued November 27, 2985, which shows that the deficiencies noted in SALP Report respecting the emergency preparedness training program had been corrected.
The table summarizing the SALP results by funct1onal areas on page 3 of the SALP Report shows a rating of Category 2 for item 18 Preoperational Testing. The text discussion of this functional area clearly shows an assessment rating of Category 1.
"Conclusion "Performance assessment Category 1.
Performance steadily improved during the assessment period. The licensee's corrective measures implemented during the previous SALP period were effective in improving previously noted weakness as demonstrated by successful completion of the remainder of the Unit 1 preoperational test program and the perform-ance of the Un1t 2 test program with vir-tually no problems noted. "
13
The achievements reported, by Mr. Crews and reflected in the latest SALP report demonstrate aggressive and effective management and competent technical cgxalif ications. The steady improvements noted belie the CREE contentions.
- 5. Im acts of Incentive Plans.
The Petition raises the spectre that incentive plans and other rate matters may 1mpose schedular and financial pressures on management which could interfere with the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of Palo Verde Un1t 2. The same 1ssue was raised in the CREE petition filed 1n 1984 with respect to the licensing of Unit 1. The decision by the Direc-tor, NRR, re)ected such pet1tion on the grounds that the NRC was alert to the potential 1mpact of incentive plans and had inst1tuted a generic study of such plans and their potential impacts. Moreover, the decision noted that 1ncreased inspection of Palo Verde was planned and would provide ev1dence of any deterioration in licensee performance. As previously noted, the inspection activity at Palo Verde 1ncreased dramatically in 1985 and did not produce any evidence of a reduction in management's commitment to achieve safe and reliable operation and maintenance of Palo Verde. On the contrary, the ratio of infractions-to-inspection manhours decreased significantly in 1985.
A The record shows that the power ascension test program for Unit 1 was conducted 1n a deliberate, conservative fashion.
There is no evidence that the incentive plans imposed upon APS by the Arizona Corporat1on Commission (or on the other Palo Verde 11censees by their respective rate regulatory authorities) led to any shortcuts that undermined the safety of Unit 1 operation.
Accor'dingly, the spectre raised by CREE must be viewed, as no more than what it 1s pure speculation so tenuous that it can provide no support for the requested suspension of the Unit 2 operating license.
- 7. Conclusion In summation, it 1s evident NRR and Region V, together with the ACRS, have engaged in a comprehensive and, penetrating scrutiny of Palo Verde in all of its aspects, but with particular emphasis on management qualifications and involvement in day-to-day activities. The record shows that criticisms and recommenda-tions generated by this close scrutiny have been taken seriously and responded to affirmatively by management.. The examples of this kind of response are numerous: e~ employment at upper management levels of additional personnel with nuclear operating experience; institution of programs to improve response time for dispos1tion of (CAR's); efforts by top management to improve compliance with technical specifications and PSAR commitments; 15
4 t
~ ~ ~l ~
timely complet1on of the equipment qualificat1on program; successful 1mplementation of fire prevention measures; remarkable operation by shift crews; improvements in preoperational testing; and currently, management direct1on in the preparation of. LER reports. All of these examples and more are indicative of
- responsible management seeking to achieve excellence.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the CREE Petition is without mer1t. Z&E activities have identified areas Nhere improvements can be made, and APS management has responded aggressively to achieve improved performance. The suspension of the Unit 2 operating license is totally unwarranted and the other relief requested is 111 conceived.
ARIZONA PUBLZC SERVICE COMPANY By Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President-ANPP 16
4 ~
l f
t E
Dated: Rebruary 21, 1986 STATE OR ARIZONA )
) ss.
COUNTY OR MARICOPA )
I, Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr ., represent that I am the Executive Vice President-ANPP, that the foregoing document has been signed by me on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company with full authority to do so, that I have read such document and know its contents, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements made therein are true.
Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Sworn before me this 21st day of Rebruary, 1986 Notary Public
~Y Commission Expires Feb. 11, 1989
la ~ a ~ ~
I
'I t
1
(
AUG 07 1986 23'or:
The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL SALE AND LEASEBACK TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR FACILITY
~Pur ose: To inform the Commissioners of the staff's intended approval of sale and leaseback transactions for Unit 2 of the Palo Verde nuclear facility Discussion: In an Order issued on December 12, 1985, (CLI-85-17), the Commission approved a proposal by the Public Service Company of New Mexico for the sale and leaseback of its 10.2% share of Unit 1 of the Palo Verde nuclear facility. Subsequent to this approval, three additional sale and leaseback proposals were submitted to the staff. Each of these proposals involves Unit 2 of the Palo Verde facility; Public Service Company of New Mexico proposes the sale and leaseback of all or a portion of its 10.2$
share of this facility, Arizona Public Service Company proposes the sale and leaseback of all or a portion of its 29.1% interest in this facility, and El Paso Electric Company will sell and leaseback all or a portion of its 15.8% share of the reactor. The basic terms of the transactions are like those approved by the Commission last year. Specifically, the involved utilities will sell their interest in the facility to an owner-trustee for the benefit of several institutional investors; possession of the facility will then be leased back to the utilities under long term leases.
The utilities will continue to be licensees and will be required to perform all responsibilities now imposed upon them under the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement, including the payment of their percentage of all taxes, insurance premiums, operating and maintenance cost and decommissioning costs. The equity-owners will have no authority or CONTACT:
E.Christenbury, OGC 49-27201 8608210038 860807 CF SECY 86-233 CF
gN d
~ i
control over the licensee, the operation of the nuclear facility or the sale and distribution of the electricity generated.
Certain differences do exist as to the identity an) nature of operation of the equity-investors, however, these differences do not appear significant given the lack of any control by the investors over the operation of the facility or the activities of the involved utilities. We have consulted with the Department of Justice and they have concurred in our judgment that there are no antitrust implications associated with these proposals, and counsel for the utilities has advised us that they have obtained the necessary approvals relating to these transactions from the FERC and the State PUCs.
The applicants have indicated that approval of these transactions is necessary by August 11, 1986. In that these proposals are of the same nature as the sale and leaseback transaction approved by the Commission last December, the staff is prepared to grant the proposals within the time frame requested.
To insure that the staff's actions are consistent with the Commission s earlier decision, the approval issued by the Director of NRR will contain the same language as the Commission's Order of December 12, 1985, and the operating license for the Palo Verde facility, Unit 2, will be amended in the same manner as was directed by the Commission in its December order.
Original signed bg Victor Ste3.10~
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations Unlike the earlier proposal, one of the present equity investors will be an investment subsidiary of the United States subsidiary of a corporation which is up to 100% foreign owned and controlled and another investor will be an investment affiliate of an electric utility with operations both within and outside the Southwest.
D I ST RIB U TION:
Reis OGC-Beth FF (2) Denton SECY G.Cunningham/Chron Pirfo Turk Malsch,,'tello Parler '. EDO J.Murray OFC : OGC : OGC P GC 0 P, '.g" DGC f~: R Pirf: Reis b Malshh: Cunningham: enton:
/: /I NAME: Christenbury St 8/q/84 ~/~/
~ ~
DATE:4/ / / ~ F< . / / 8'/
D APR 2119Il Distribution VStello DEisenhut/HDenton FMiraglia GKnighton MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino ELicitra Commissioner Roberts JLee Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal EDO r/f Commissioner Zech FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF FULL-POWER LICENSING OF PALO VERDE 2 On March 24, 1986, I sent to you a briefing package for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2. At that time, Supplement 10 to the Safety Evaluation
'eport was not available. Copies of a draft of this supplement are being forwarded to you with this memorandum.
We have also made changes to the proposed license that was sent to you with the
'-March 24 memorandum. A copy of the revised proposed full-power license is enclosed. The revised pages are identified by vertical lines indicating the
'rea of change,.
1 0 ~8~mz 3<8aed gp
~otoz Ste'llo Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
(1) Draft Supplement 10 to SER (2) Revised Proposed Full-Power License cc: SECY OPE OGE
Contact:
E. A. Licitra, NRR Ext. 28599
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES PWR PD-7
- JLee:mcs 4/15/86 PWR PD-7
- ELicitra 4/15/86 PWR PD-7
- GKnighton 4/15/86 FJ 4l [Is6 lia 0
4l~gls6 hut ON@
HRDenton 4I(gls6 EDO VS' 1
~
4liy'Is6 o
8b04280347 8b0421 CF ADOCN 05000M9 CF
\1 I
(
J 1
W r
(
<<'T
',ll 1
1 Hl f
IH 1
h ~
1
Distribution VStello DEisenhut/HDenton FMiraglia GKnighton MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino ELicitra Commissioner Roberts JLee Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF FULL-POWER LICENSING OF PALO VERDE 2 On March 24, 1986, I sent to you a briefing package for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2. At that time, Supplement 10 to the Safety Evaluation Report was not available. Copies of a draft of this supplement are being forwarded to you with this memorandum.
We have also made changes to the proposed license that was sent to you with the March 24 memorandum. A copy of the revised proposed full-power license is enclosed.
For your convenience, we have provided completely new notebooks. In summary, the enclosed briefing package updates the one provided to you on March 24.
Since the published versions of Supplements 8 and 9 to the Safety Evaluation Report were previously provided to you, they are not included in this update.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Updated Palo Verde 2 Briefing Package cc: SECY OPE OGE
Contact:
E. A. Licitra, NRR Ext. 28599
- JLee:mcs *ELicitra *GKnighton FJMiraglia DGEisenhut HRDenton VStello 4/15/86 4/15/86 4/15/86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86
I I
11
Distribution VStello DEisenhut/HDenton FMiraglia GKnighton MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino ELicitra ommissioner Roberts JLee C missioner Asselstine Co issioner Bernthal Comm'ioner Zech FROM: Victor tello, Jr.
Executiv Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERAT N OF FULL-POWER LICENSIN OF PALO VERDE 2 On March 24, 1986, I sent to yo <a briefing packap for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2. At 8hat time, Suppl ment 10 to the Safety Evaluation Report was not available. Copies f a draft of his supplement are being forwarded to you with this memoran m.
had, We have also made changes to the prop ped li ense that was sent to you.by the March 24 memorandum. A copy of the reP'sed roposed full-power license is enclosed.
For your convenience, we have provided c m etely new notebooks. In summary, the enclosed briefing package updates t e on provided to you on March 24.
Since the published versions of Supple ents 8 nd 9 to the Safety Evaluation Report were previously provided to yo , they ar not included in this update.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Direc r for Operations Enclosure :
Updated Palo Verde 2 Briefin Package cc: SECY OPE OGE
Contact:
E. A. Lici a, NRR Ext. 28599 W D-7 PWR PD-7 P PWR-B ONRR ONRR 'DO J :mcs ELicitra j.ghton FJMiraglia DGEisenhut HRDenton VStello 4/) /86 4//5/86 4/J$ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86
tt
- %J4 W, ~
Hay 7, 1986 DOCKET NO(S). STN 5Q-529 The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives washington, D.C. 20515
SUBJECT:
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE C01'PANY, ET AL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATXNG STATXON, UNXT 2 The following documents co'ncerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.
C3 Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated CI Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated D Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. , dated Cj Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated D Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated Cl Monthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated Cl Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume O Amendment No. to Application/SAR dated O Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated
, Amendment No. , dated D Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated C3 Other (Specify/
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Representative Carlos Noorhead bcc: OCA DS F>CE~
SURNAME~ ~ ~ ~
DATE~
NRC FORM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240
4~ p II I
~ 'I gA I
t 0 l
yr
/
I r
Hay 7, 1986 DOCKET NO(S). STN 50-529 The Honorable Norris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 SUBJF-CT: ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COHPANY, ET AL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS KNIT 2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.
D Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated Cl Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated CI Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. , dated C) Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated t
O Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated C3 Monthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated D Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume Cl Amendment No. to Application/SAR dated CI Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated R3 Facility Operating License No. NPP-51, Amendment No. , dated Cl Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated C3 Other (Specify)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Representative Hanuel Lucan bcc: OCA DFF1CE~ D 7 SURNAME%
DATE~ 5
~~~ ~ ~ A.
NRC FORM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240
~ A ~
May 7, 1986 DOCKET NO(S). STN 50-529 The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environmental and Public Qorks United States Senate flashington, D.C. 20510 SUBJECT'RIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION~ UNIT 2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.
C3 Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated O Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Cl Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. ' dated D Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated D Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated CI Monthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated D Application and Safety Analysts Report, Volume D Amendment No. to Application/SAR dated D Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated 6} Facility Operating License No. NPP-51, Amendment No. , dated D Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated D Other (Specify/
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated Senator Gary Hart bcc: OCA OFFiCS~ D 7.
SURNAM+W J e ~o
~~~ ~~~~
DATE~
5/.7./86-." " ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
NRC FORM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240
4 ~
E