ML17312B187
| ML17312B187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1997 |
| From: | Clifford J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17312B188 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701230311 | |
| Download: ML17312B187 (72) | |
Text
U T
STAT S NUC EAR REGU ATORY COMH SSION ARI ONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY DOCKET NO.
STN 50-'530 PA 0 VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO.
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption to Facility Operating License No. NPF-74, i'ssued to Arizona Public Service Company,,(the licensee),
for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.
3 located in Haricopa County, Arizona.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Pro osed Action:
The proposed action would'llcw a temporary exemption for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit 3, from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.4'4, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K.
The proposed action.
would permit the use of up to three lead fuel assemblies containing fuel rods clad with advanced Zirconium-based alloys in PVNGS Unit 3 for Cycles 7, 8, and 9.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated September 12, 1996.
~I vo
The Need for the Pro osed Action:
The proposed action is needed to allow testing of representative cladding material whose chemical composition falls outside the ASTH specifications for Zircaloy.
The regulations currently specify the use of Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding material.
The proposed action would allow testing to collect data to support future regulation changes to allow full batch use of the new cladding material.
Environmental Im acts of the Pro osed Action:
The Commission has completed i,ts evaluation of the proposed action and concludes, pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 12, that the exemption is authorized.
by law and will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest.
The proposed material is very similar to current cladding materi'als used i~ the core
- and, core neutronics, m,.:hanics, hydraulics and materials integrity will not be affected'y the use of the test assemblies.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no signifi:ant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no. significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological
- impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
4I l
Alternatives to the Pro osed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed
- action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated'.
As an alternative to the proposed
- action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action.
Denial of the application would reduce operational flexibility and would not change current environmental impacts.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station dated February 1982.
A encies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 21,
- 1997, the staff consulted with the Arizona State official, Hr. William Wright of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental, assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a signi,ficant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed, action, see the licensee's letter dated September 12,
- 1996, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, The Gelman Building, 2120
~1
~I I(
r r
- L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local publ.ic document room located at the Phoenix Public Library, 1221 N. Central
- Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of January 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Jam s
W. Cli'ff d,, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
I1
~ 't L
p$
t 1 4 I
~,
4 1<
t
DISTRIBUTION Docket PDIV-2 Reading.
OGC CThomas.
BHolian EPeyton man August 16, 1995
.'WBate MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review.and Directives. Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Pub ications Services Office of Administration
'FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor..Regulation P
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3)
One signed original of,the Federal Register Notice Identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for. publication. Additional conformed copies
(
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction. Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of'Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and,Facility'L'icense(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility:Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental. Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for, Hearing.
'otice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Q] Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental, Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final'Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
DOCKET NO.
STN 5O 53O Attachment(s):
As stated
Contact:
C. Thomas Telephone:
@5 1325 DOCUMENT NAME:
To receive e copy of thla document, indicate In the box: C'opy without attachment/enclosure E
~ Copy with attachment/ancloaum N"
'No copy OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICIAL'RECORD.COPY
II 41
,H 1
S 7590-01 T
TAT AR R
G In the Hatter of
)
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COHPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Unit No. 3)
)
Docket No.
STN 50-530 The Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(APS or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-41, which authorizes operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit No. 3.
The license
- provides, among other things, that PVNGS, Unit 3, is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) now or hereafter in effect.
The PVNGS, Unit 3, facility is a pressurized water reactor located at the licensee's site in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the performance of three Type A containment integrated leakage rate tests (ILRTs) at. approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period of the primary containment.
The third test of each set shall be conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year inservice inspection.
0
<P
By letter dated June 21,
- 1995, the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a),
on a
one-time schedular extension which would permit rescheduling the second containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) in the first 10-year service period from the fifth refueling outage (3R5) currently scheduled for November 1995 to the sixth refueling outage (3R6) planned for April 1997.
The current ILRT requirements for PVNGS, Unit 3, as set forth in Appendix J,
are that, after the pre-operational leak rate test, a set of three Type A tests must be performed at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year period.
Also, the third test of each set must be conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant-inservice inspection (ISI).
The first periodic Type A test was performed in Hay of 1991 during the second refueling outage in Unit 3 (3R2),
40 months from the date of Unit 3 commercial operation.
The. second periodic test is currently scheduled to be performed in November of 1995 during the fifth refueling outage (3R5), corresponding to an interval of 54 months.
The third Type A test is currently planned to be performed during the seventh refueling outage (3R7) which would coincide with the completion of the first 10-year ISI interval.
The proposed exemption would allow APS to delay the Unit 3 second Type A test until the sixth refueling outage (3R6)'.
The Type A test would'entatively be scheduled for April of 1997, and would increase the interval between the first and second. Type A test from, 54 months to 71 months.
The third Type A test is not being altered by this exemption request and will remain scheduled for the seventh refueling outage (3R7)..
This exemption request
'proposes an increase to the interval between the first and second
Type A test but does not alter the frequency of testing (three Type A tests performed in a ten year period) during the first 10 year ISI interval.
IV.
The previous testing 'history at PVNGS, Unit 3,,provides substantial justification for, the proposed test interval extension.
Type A testing is performed to determine that the total leakage from primary containment does not exceed the maximum allowable leakage rate (L,) as specified in the
- PVNGS, Unit 3, technical'pecifications (TS).
The primary containment maximum allowable leakage rate provides an input assumption to the calculation required to ensure that the maximum potential offsite dose during a design basis accident does not result in a dose in excess of that specified in 10 CFR Part 100.
The allowable L, for PVNGS, Unit 3, is 0; 10 percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at P,,
where P, is defined as the calculated peak internal containment pressure.related to the design basis accident, specified in the PVNGS TS as 49.5 psig.
The acceptance criteria for the Type A test is 75 percent of L, or 0.075 percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at P,.
The licensee performed a plant-specific study concluding that the extension of the Type A test has a negligible impact on overall risk.
This study relied heavily on the existing Type 8 and C testing program which is not affected by this exemption, and, will continue to effectively detect containment leakage.
Additionally, the licensee stated that its exemption request meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 12, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) (the underlying purpose of the regulation is achieved).
0
~I
The licensee categorized mechanisms that could cause degradation oF the containment into two types:
(1) degradation due to work which is performed as part of a modification or maintenance activity on a component or system (activity based);
or (2) degradation resulting from a time based failure mechanism (i.e., deterioration of the containment structure due to pressure, temperature, radiation, chemical or other such effects).
To address the potential degradation due to an activity based mechanism, the licensee reviewed containment system related modifications performed since the last Type A test.
The licensee concluded that the modifications performed did not impact containment integrity, or the modifications have, or will 'be, tested adequately to ensure that there is no degradation from an activity based mechanism.
In addition, the licensee maintains administrative controls which ensure that an appropriate retest, including local leak rate testing, if appl.icable, is specified for maintenance activities which affect primary containment integrity.
Regarding time based failure mechanisms,,
the licensee concluded that risk of a non-detectable increase in the primary containment leakage is considered negligible due to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Type B and C testing program.
The licensee stated that without actual accident conditions, structural deterioration is a gradual phenomenon which requires periods of time well in excess of the proposed 71-month test interval which would result by performing the second periodic Type A test during 3R6.
Other than accident conditions, the only external mechanism inducing stress of the containment
0
structure is the test itself.
The li'censee maintains that the longer test interval would, therefore, lessen the frequency of stressing the containment.
Additionally, the licensee has performed the, general. inspections of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment structures and components prior to the previous Type A tests, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section V.A.
These inspections are intended to uncover any evidence of structural deterioration which may affect either the containment structural integrity or leak tightness.
At PVNGS, Unit 3, there has been no evidence of structural deterioration that would impact structural integrity or leak tightness.
Although the containment inspections required by Appendix J are limited in scope, they provide an important added level of confidence.
The licensee has committed to perform the general containment inspection as originally scheduled, during the upcoming 3R5.
The preoperational and first periodic Type A tests performed in Unit 3 both passed the acceptance cri.teria with adequate margin.
The test results were 0.0521 and 0.062 percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at P respectively.
The Type A test results were confirmatory of the Type B and C tests, and demonstrate that PVNGS Unit 3 is a low-leakage containment.
A test report for each of the Type A tests was submitted to the Commission for staff review in accordance with the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50,
'Appendix J,Section V.B.
The 10 CFR 50; Appendix J, Type B tests are intended to detect local leaks and to measure leakage across pressure containing or leakage limiting-boundaries other than valves, such as, containment penetrations incorporating resilient seals,
- gaskets, doors,
- hatches, etc.
The 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Type C tests are, intended to measure primary containment isolation valve
0 t
'I
leakage rates.
The frequency and scope of Type,B and C testing are not being altered by this proposed. exemption request.
The acceptance criteria for Type B and C testing is 0.6 La, or 0'6 percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at P,.
This acceptance criteria (0.6 L,) is for the sum of all valves and penetrations subject to Type B and C testing and represents a
considerable portion of the Type A test allowable leakage.
The test results of the combined Type B and C leakage rates for Unit 3 were shown in a table on the licensee's exemption request submittal.
The Unit 3 test results are substantially below the allowable acceptance criteria for the combined Type B and C leakage rates.
These test results demonstrate a good historic performance of the containment integrity system.
The Type 8 and C testing program is not being altered by this exemption request and will continue to effectively detect containment leakage caused by activity based or time based failure mechanisms..
A plant-specific analysis for PVNGS was performed to evaluate the potential for extending the Type A test frequency.
The PVNGS, Unit 3, plant-specific analysis considered the extension of the interval, to as much as 240 months.
The conclusion of the analysis was that the extension of the Type A
test interval has a negligible impact on overall risk.
The licensee's exemption request does not alter the frequency for performance of Type A testing (i.e., it still maintains a frequency of 3 tests per 10 years).
However, the licensee maintains that the data from this study support the requested exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, regarding "approximately equal intervals."
The interval between the first and
ll It
second Type A tests would be 71 months with this exemption.
The
- PVNGS, Unit 3, plant-specific analysis supports the use of a 240-month interval with a negligible impact on overall risk.
The licensee referenced 10 CFR 50. 12(a)(2)(ii) as a basis for this exemption.
This section defines such a circumstance where "application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule...."
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1.(a),
is to establish and maintain a level of confidence that any primary containment
- leakage, during a hypothetical design basis accident, will;remain less than or equal to the maximum allowable value, L by performing periodic Type A testing.
Compliance with the "approximately equaT intervals" clause of Appendix J is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, as explained in the above technical justification.
V.
The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 12(a)(1), this exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security.
The Commission further determined, for the reasons discussed below, that special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR 50. 12(a)(2)(ii), are present justifying the exemption; namely, that application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
The underlying purpose of the requirement to perform Type A containment leak rate tests at intervals during the 10-year service period is to ensure that any potential leakage pathways through the containment boundary
II Il
are identified within a time span that prevents significant degradation from continuing or becoming unknown.
The NRC staff has reviewed the basis and supporting information provided by the licensee in the exemption request.
The NRC staff has noted that the licensee has a good record of ensuring a leak-tight containment.
All Type A tests have passed with adequate margin.
The licensee has also noted that the results of the Type A testing have been confirmatory of the Type B and C tests (which will continue to be performed).
Additionally, the licensee has committed to perform the general containment inspection during the upcoming refueling outage (3R5), thereby providing an added level of'onfidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
The NRC staff has also made use of a draft staff report, NUREG-1493, which provides the technical justification for the present Appendix J rulemaking effort which. also includes a 10-year test interval for Type A tests.
The integrated leakage rate test, or Type A test, measures overall containment leakage.
However, operating experience with all types of containments used in this country demonstrates that essentially all containment leakage can be detected by local leakage rate tests (Type B
and C).
According to results given in NUREG-1493, out of 180 'ILRT reports covering 110.individual reactors and approximately 770 years of operating history, only 5 ILRT failures were found which local leakage rate testing could'ot detect.
This is three percent of all failures.
This study agrees with previous NRC staff studies which show that Type B and C testing can detect a very large percentage of containment leaks.
The PVNGS-3 experience has also been consistent with this.
0 1'
The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), collected and provided the NRC staff with summaries of data to assist in the Appendix J rulemaking effort.
NUNRC collected results of 144 ILRTs from 33 units; 23 ILRTs exceeded 1.0 L,.
Of these, only nine were not due to Type B or C leakage penalties.
The NEI data also added another perspective.
The.NEI data show that in about one-third'f the cases exceeding allowable leakage, the as-.found leakage was less than 2 L,; in one case the leakage was found to.be approximately 2 L,; in one case the as-found leakage was less than 3 L,; one case approached 10 L,; and in one case the leakage was found.to be approximately 21 L,.
For about half of the failed ILRTs, the as-found leakage was not quantified.
These data show that, for those ILRTs for which the leakage was quantified, the leakage values are small in comparison to the leakage value at which the risk.to the public starts to increase over the value of risk corresponding to L, (approximately 200 L as discussed in NUREG-1493).
Based on generic and plant-specific data, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's proposed one-time exemption allowing APS to delay the Unit 3 second Type A test until the sixth refueling outage (3R6), which would increase the interval between the first and second Type A test from 54 months to 71 months, is acceptable.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that granting this exemption will not have a significant impact on the human envi'ronment (60 FR 42189).
0 This exemption is effective upon.issuance and shall expire at the completion of the 3R6 refueling outage.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONMISSION Dated at Rockville, maryland, this 16th day of August 1995 ck M. Roe, Director Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Ck
~ gt
August 9, 1995 DISTRIBUTION
.,Docket PDIV-2 Reading OGC CThomas BHolian fPeyton MEMORANDUMTO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ARIZONA PUBLIC SfRVICf COt~lPANY (Palo Verde Nuclear Gener ating Station, Unit 3)
One signed original of the Federe/Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies
(
5
).of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
+ Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility Ucense(s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
(Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
+ Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
X Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Q Other:
DOCKS NO STN 50-530 Attachment(s):
As stated C
Thomas Telephone:
415 1325 DOCUMENT NAME:
To recehre a copy of thla document. indicate ln the box:
C Copy without attachmantlencloaura E
~ Copy with attachmentlencloaure N'
No copy OFFICE PDIV-2 NAME DATE OFFICIALRECORD COPY
Ik
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AR ONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET A PA 0 VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO.
3 DOCKET NO.
STN 50-530 ONMENTA ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a),
Type A Tests, to the. Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(APS or the licensee),
for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit No. 3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
EN IRONMENTA ASSESSMENT dentification of the Pro osed Action:
The proposed action would allow an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a),
on a one-time schedular extension which would permit rescheduling the second containment integrated leak rate test
( ILRT) in the first 10-year service period from the fifth refueling outage (3R5) currently scheduled for November 1995 to the'ixth refueling outage (3R6) planned for April 1997.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated June 21, 1995.
t
f r
o ed Action:
The current ILRT requirements for PVNGS, Unit 3, as set forth in Appendix J, are that, after the pre-operational leak rate test, a set of three Type A tests must be performed at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year period.
Also, the third test of each set must be conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant inservice inspection (ISI).
The first periodic Type A test was performed in Hay of 1991 during the second refueling outage in Unit 3 (3R2),
40 months from the date of Unit 3 commercial operation.
The second periodic test is currently scheduled to be performed in November of 1995 during the fifth refueling outage (3R5), corresponding to an interval of 54 months.
The th'ird Type A test is currently planned to be performed during the seventh refueling outage (3R7) which would coincide with the completion of the first 10-year ISI interval.
The licensee has requested a schedular exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1.(a) in regards to "approximately equal time intervals."
Specifically, the proposed exemption would allow APS to delay the Unit 3 second Type A test until the sixth refueling outage (3R6).
The Type A test would tentatively be scheduled for April of 1997, and would increase the interval between the first and second Type A test from 54 months to 71 months.
The third Type A test is not being altered by this exemption request and is scheduled to be performed during the seventh refueling outage (3R7) which would coincide with the completion of the first 10-year ISI interval.
This
'xemption request proposes an increase to the interval between the first and second Type A test but does not alter the frequency of testing (three Type A tests performed in a ten year period) during the first 10 year ISI interval.
The visual inspection of the containment is not included in the proposed
II I I
exemption and will be performed as originally planned during the fifth refueling outage (3R5).
v'r nmenta Im acts of the Pro osed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.
The licensee has analyzed the results of previous Type A tests performed at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3.
The licensee has provided an acceptable basis for concluding that the proposed one-time extension of the Type A test interval would maintain the containment leakage rates within acceptable limits.
Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that the one-time extension does not result in a significant incr ease in the amounts of any effluents that may be released nor does it result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential nonradiological
- impacts, the proposed exemption only involves Type A testing on the containment.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
'ccordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exempti'on.
Alternatives to the Pro osed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed
- action, any alternatives with equal or greater.environmental impact need not be evaluated.
As an alternative to the
4l
,'l
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action.
Denial of the application would not result in any change in.current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no. changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3," dated February 1982.
A encies and Persons
'Consulted:,
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 17, 1995, the staff consulted with the Arizona State official, Mr. William Wright of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF N
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the hUman environment.
Accordingly, the Comm'ission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
0
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's letter dated June 21,
- 1995, which is 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 Phoenix Public Library, 1221 N. Central,
- Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Dated at Rockville, Haryland, this 9th day of August 1995, FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Charles R.
- Thomas, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Ik 0
q/~ "<+u/
ci 4
0 Cy I
O I
~i E Vl0 Y/+~
eo
+**4+
DocKETNo.
50-530 STRIBUTION'NITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 C.
Thompson July 20,
$ 992 D. Foster Regulatory Publications Branch MEMORANDUMFOR:
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY One signed original of the Federal Register Notice;Identified below is enclosed for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies (
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating,License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License. (Call with
-day Insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availability of Applicant's-Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental, Statement.
'Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
0 Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
El Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Other:
Divisionooi'eactor Projects III/IY/V and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated con~act: Catherine fI. Thompson or Leslie Hill 504-3062 OrriCE SURNAME DATE
...>WJ.LA..
D. Fos 7/20 /92
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
NRC FORM ste uo/sot NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
jul
~1m,
ip.R Hler Wp
+
0 Cy
~ +c I
n0 IVI 0
~y
+0 gO
+%*4+
DOCKET NO. 5O MEMORANDUMFOR:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS)ON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 JIlne 2, 1992 Chief Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management DISTRIBUTION Docket File i
PDV Reading File CThompson CTrammel'1 DFoster FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAI 0 VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 3 (TAC NO. HSZ544)
One sIgned original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is.enclosed for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies (
5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License. (Call with
.day Insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility L'icense(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availabilityof Safety. Evaluation Report.
Notice of Issuance of Construction Permt t(s).
Notice of fssuance of.Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
H Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
0 Other.
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/Y
Enclosure:
As stated contact:
C. Thompson Phone:
5O4 3Q62 C~sicc PDY/LA suRNAMc DFOSter 0Avc
/
/92 NRC ARM sts no/so) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
4>
t i
1
- I I
>*+~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.'20555 June 2,
1992 Docket.No. 50-530 Hr. William F.
Conway Executive Vice President, Nuclear Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 53999
- Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999
Dear,
Hr.
Conway:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.
3 (TAC NO; M82544)
Enclosed for your information is. a.copy of an "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact."
The Environmental Assessment relates to your request dated December 20, 1991, for an exemption to 10 CFR 50.46, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.44 to permit the use of fuel rods clad with zirconium-based alloys whose compositions are outside the range of Zircaloy-4, during Unit 3 fuel cycles 4, 5, and 6.
The Environmental Assessment has been sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication..
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated Catherine H. Thompson, Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of.Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/enclosure:
See next page
ig(
~0
Mr. William F.
Conway Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde CC:
Nancy C. Loftin, Esq.
Corporate Secretary L Counsel Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 53999, Mail Station 9068
- Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison-Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, Cal'ifornia 91770 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HC-03 Box 293-NR
- Buckeye, Arizona 85326 Regional Administrator, Regi'on V
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Will.iam A. Wright, Acting Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street
- Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Chairman Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ill South Third Avenue
- Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Newman 8 Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.
20036 Curtis Hoskins Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Palo Verde Services 2025 N. 3rd Street, Sui.te 220
- Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Roy P.
Lessey, Jr.,
Esq.
Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
Arkin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld El Paso Electric Company 1333 New Hampshire Ave., Suite 400 Washington, D.C.
20036
ig>
1 4
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY'OMMISSION
,ARIZONA PUBL'IC SERVICE 'COMPANY ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-530 PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
'UNIT NO.
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND,FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-74, issued to Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, El Paso Electric Company, Southern California Edison
- Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Public Power Authority (the licensees),
for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Pro osed Action The exemption from 10 CFR 50.46, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR'0.44 would allow the substitution of up to a total of 80 fuel rods clad with advanced zirconium-based alloys in two fuel. assemblies for in-reactor performance evaluation purposes during cycles 4, 5, and 6.
The exemption is in accordance with the licensee's application for Technical Specification amendment dated December 20, 1991.
The Need for the Pro osed Action The licensee's basis for the exemption is presented below:
ii
'I
The Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K contain requirements for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) at light-water nuclear power plants fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy cladding.
Requirements for control of hydrogen gas at light-water reactors fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy are contained in 10 CFR 50.44.
The regulations do not define what is considered zircaloy.
Therefore, it is not clear whether the deviations from the composition specifications of Zircaloy-4 of some of the fuel rods in the proposed demonstration program are within the regulatory basis of the zircaloy specified in 50.46, Appendix K, and 50.44.
Arizona Public Service Company requests that an exemption be granted to 10 CFR 50.46, 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.44 to permit the use of fuel rods clad with zirconium-based alloys whose compositions are outside the range of Zircaloy-4.
The underlying purpose, of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K
is to establish requirements for calculations of emergency core cooling systems.
The safety analysis for the Technical Specification change to allow the use of the advanced alloy cladding in the PVNGS Unit 3 demonstration assemblies identifies that the behavior of the alloys is expected to be essentially the same as that of conventional Zircaloy-4 under all conditions experienced during both normal operation and under the conditions existing during the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) transient.
Therefore, the 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K criteria will be satisfied for the advanced'lloys.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44 is to ensure that means are provided for the control of hydrogen gas that may be generated following a LOCA.
The safety analysis for the Technical Specification change to allow the use of the advanced alloys in the PVNGS Unit 3 demonstration assemblies identifies that the 8 phase oxidation rate of the advanced alloys will be comparable to or lower than that of Zircaloy-4.
Therefore, the use of the advanced alloys will have no significant effect on previous assessments of hydrogen gas production.
Environmental Im act of the Pro osed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of this proposed exemption, and concludes that unfavorable operational or safety considerations will not be introduced by this action, and no perceptible impact on the environment will result.
The advanced cladding alloys are expected to perform as well as the Zircaloy-4 cladding.
The fuel assemblies meet the same design bases as fuel currently in the reactor.
No safety limits have been changed or set points altered to permit the use of
ig(
these new assemblies.
In addition, the FSAR analyses are bounding for the new assemblies.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probabi,lity or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made, in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or, cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential nonradiological
- impacts, the proposed exemption involves the use of fuel rods with advanced zirconium-based alloys.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the exemption.
Alternative to the Pro osed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no signi,ficant environmental effects that would result from the proposed
- action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption and associated amendment.
This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would deny the licensee the opportunity to test cladding with improved corrosion resistance properties.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the
i~
0 e
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.
3 dated February 1982.
encies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal
~Re ister on February 19, 1992 (57 FR 6034).
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's application for amendment dated December 20,
- 1991, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room at the Phoenix Public Library, 12 East McDowell Road,.Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of brune, 1992.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Project III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
4~
<5 C
0
=0 uP~Pg Distri57.txt Distribut'ion Sheet Priority: 'Normal From:
Esperanza Lomosbog
'Action Recipients:
ternal~~eci+ien&s.:
ILE CEAZER 0'1 Copies:
Not Found External Recipients:
NRC PDR NOAC Not Found Not Found Total Copies:
Item:
ADAMS Document Library:
ID:'93400385
Subject:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)
RE:
STEA M GENERATOR REPLACEMENT AND POWER UPRATE FOR PALO VERDE UNIT 2 Body:
PDR ADOCK 05000530 P
Docket:
- 05000530, Notes: Standardized'lant.
Page 1
41 41 I
November 30, 1999 MEMORANDUMTO:
Stephen Dembek, Chief, Section 2 Project:Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of L'icensing Project Management Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mel B. Fields, Project Manager Project Directorate IV 8 Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH ARIZONAPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS) RE: STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT AND POWER UPRATE FOR PALO'VERDE UNIT2 DATE &TIME:
LOCATION:
PURPOSE:
Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:30 a.m. -1 p.m.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 0-16 B-4 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 APS willprovide status to the staff on the plans to replace the steam generators in Palo Verde Unit 2 and the plans to request a power uprate for Unit 2 following the steam generator replacement.
PARTICIPANTS*:
Docket No. STN 50-530 cc: See next page NRC R. Wessman S. Dembek A. Lee C. Liang J. Tsao A. Attard M. Fields APS S. Bauer C. Churchman, et al.
CONTACT:
Mel B. Fields 301-415-3062
- Meetings between NRC staff and'licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Commission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the. Public" 59 Federal Register 48340, 9/20/94.
DISTRIBUTION: See attached list o receive a.co o
is ocumen, in ica e in e
ox OFFICE NAME DATE PDIV-2/PM.. C MFiel PDIV-D/LA C
CJamerson Q.
11~)o ~cf g PDIV-C bek DOCUMENT NAME: 'G:EPDIV-2EPaloVerdehmtn-1 1299;wpd OFFICIAL'RECORD COPY Q Cc ~ I< <<~eq~voo~~~
igj:.
l
'I jP t C '
Ir
~s l
November 30, 1999 MEMORANDUMTO:
Stephen'Dembek, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate IV 8 Decommissioning
-Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE.KTIME:
LOCATION:
PURPOSE:
Mel B. Fields, Project Manager Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH ARIZONAPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS) RE: STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT AND POWER UPRATE FOR"PALO VERDE UNIT2 Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
'.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 0-16 B-4
'Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 APS will provide status to the staff on the plans to replace the steam generators in Palo Verde Unit 2 and,the plans to request a power uprate for Unit 2 following the steam generator replacement.
PARTICIPANTS*:
Docket No. STN 50-530 cc: See next page NRC R. Wessman S. Dembek A. Lee C. Liang J. Tsao A. Attard M. Fields APS S. Bauer C. Churchman, et al.
CONTACT:
Mel B. Fields 301-415-3062
- Meetings between NRC staff and licensees are open. for interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Commission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public" 59 Federal Register 48340, 9/20/94.
DISTRIBUTION: See attached list o receive a co o
is ocumen, in ica e in e
ox OFFICE PDIV-2/PM C PDIV-D/LA C PDIV-C NAME MFiel DATE
/I Z~- /9 CJamerson
<~
bek n +ON DOCUMENT NAME: GAPDIV-25PaloVerdekmtn-1 1299.wpd OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~P,R RE0IJ c<
Cg~o 0
." g
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 30, 1999 MEMORANDUMTO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Stephen Dembek, Chief, Section 2 Project, Directorate IV 8 Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reac or, Regulation Mel B. Fi s,
roject Ma g r Project Directorate IV 8 Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
FORTHC(5MING'MEETINGWITH ARIZONA.PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS) RE: STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENT, AND POWER UPRATE FOR,PALO'VERDE'UNIT 2 DATE & TIME:
LOCATION:
PURPOSE:
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
.9:30 a.m. -1 p.m.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike,.'Room 0-16, B-4 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738
. APS willprovide status to the staff on the plans to replace the steam generators in Palo Verde Unit 2 and the plans to request a power uprate for Unit 2 following the steam generator replacement.
PARTICIPANTS*:
NRC R; Wessman S. Dembek A. Lee C. Liang J. Tsao A.
Attard'.
Fields APS S. Bauer C. Churchman, et al.
Docket No. STN 50-530 cc: See next page CONTACT:
Mel B. Fields 301-415-3062
- Meetings.between. NRC staff and licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors,,or other parties to attend. as observers pursuant to "Commission Policy Statement on Staff. Meetings Open to the Public" 59 Federal Register 48340;9)20194.
II S
k
Palo Verde Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 CC:
Mr. Steve Olea Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Mr. David Summers Public Service Company of New Mexico 414 Silver SW, 41206 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Douglas Kent Porter Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Generation Resources P.O. Box 800 Rosemead; CA 91770 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 40 Buckeye, AZ 85326 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower & Pavillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Chairman Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street Phoenix, AZ 85040 Mr. Jarlath Curran Southern California Edison Company 5000 Pacific Coast Hwy Bldg DIN San Clemente, CA 92672 Mr. Robert Henry Salt River Project 6504 East Thomas Road Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Terry Bassham, Esq.
General. Counsel El Paso Electric Company 123 W. Mills El Paso, TX 79901 Mr. John Schumann Los Angeles Department of Water 8 Power Southern California Public Power Authority P.O. Box 51111, Room 1255-C Los Angeles,, CA 90051-0100 Mr. Gregg R. Overbeck Senior Vice President, Nuclear Arizona"Public Service Company
'P. O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Ms. Angela K. Krainik, Director Regulatory Affairs Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Mr. John C. Horne Vice President, Power Generation El Paso Electric Company 2702 N. Third Street, Suite 3040 Phoenix, AZ 85004 August 18, 1999
0>
0 gl
0 DISTRIBUTION FOR NOTICE OF DECEMBER 14 1999 'MEETING WITH APS DATED: November 30, 1999 a
~Hard Co
~File.Center.(STbl;50=530)>
PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading M. Fields OGC ACRS Receptionist (OWFN 8 TWFN)
E-Mail B. Sheron J. Zwolinski/S. Black
'S. Richards S. Dembek M. King C. Jamerson OPA (e-mail.to OPA)
R. Wessman A.J.H. Lee C. Liang J. Tsao A. Attard P. Harrell, RIV D. Lange B. Henderson PMNS (Meeting Announcement Coordinator)
ll V
II 0