[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21863]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 6, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530]

 

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
41, 51, and 74, issued to Arizona Public Services Company for operation 
of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, 
respectively, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
    The proposed amendment would add the analytical method supplement 
entitled ``Calculative Methods for the CE Large Break LOCA Evaluation 
Model for the Analysis of CE and W Designed NSSS,'' CENPD-132, 
Supplement 3-P-A, dated June 1985, to the list of analytical methods in 
TS Section 6.9.1.10 used to determine the PVNGS core operating limits. 
Additionally, further administrative changes are proposed to the list 
of analytical methods.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards considerations, which is presented 
below:

    Standard 1--Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of 
any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident. The proposed change simply adds an NRC-approved LOCA [loss 
of coolant accident] evaluation methodology to the list of 
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits. The 
proposed change does not alter the conditions or assumptions in any 
of the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] accident 
analyses. Since the UFSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the 
radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely 
affected by the proposed change. Therefore, it can be concluded that 
the proposed change to Section 6.9.1.10 does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Standard 2--Does the proposed amendment create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of 
any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for 
any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new 
limiting failure been identified as a result of the proposed change. 
Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed change to Section 
6.9.1.10 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Standard 3--Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    The proposed change is administrative in nature in that an NRC-
approved LOCA evaluation methodology is being added to the list of 
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits. Since 
the core operating limits are still being established by an NRC-
approved methodology and will provide adequate core protection, the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted 
by mail to the Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom 
of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should 
cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register 
notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White 
Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. 
to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may 
be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 
L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By October 6, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Phoenix Public Library, 12 East 
McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004. If a request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the 
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 
hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a 
petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the 
interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may 
be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should 
specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted 
with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of 
the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the 
proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible 
effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific 
aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which 
petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for 
leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the 
petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to 
the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such 
an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described 
above. Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the 
above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the 
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform 
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to Theodore R. Quay: petitioner's name and 
telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication 
date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the 
petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Nancy C. 
Loftin, Esq., Corporate Secretary and Counsel, Arizona Public Service 
Company, P.O. Box 53999, Mail Station 9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-
3999, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitioners for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(r) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated August 18, 1994, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at Phoenix Public Library, 12 East 
McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Holian,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-21863 Filed 9-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M