[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29659]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 2, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. STN 50-528]

 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit No. 1; 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 No. 
NPF-41, issued to the Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the 
licensee), for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit No. 1, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
    The proposed amendment would add a note to the Palo Verde Unit 1 
Technical Specification Table 3.7-2. The note would allow continued 
operation of Unit 1 during Cycle 5 at 100 percent maximum steady state 
power level with one main steam safety valve (MSSV) inoperable per 
steam generator. This note applies only during the current fuel cycle 
(Cycle 5) for Unit 1.
    This amendment is being requested on an exigent basis to return 
Unit 1 to 100% power because the current condition (one inoperable MSSV 
per SG), is limiting Unit 1 to 98.2% power until the next refueling 
outage (the next Unit 1 refueling, Cycle 6, is scheduled for April 
1995).
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 consideration, which is presented 
below:

    Standard 1--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed technical specification (TS) amendment does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated. The primary pressure peaking 
events [loss of condenser vacuum (LOCV), feedwater line break (FLB), 
and control element assembly (CEA) ejection events] were analyzed to 
provide a comparison of pressure response using a base case with a 
moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) of 0.0 [deltaP K/K]/ deg.F 
and ten operable main steam safety valves (MSSVs) per steam 
generator (SG) and a second case using an MTC of -1.0 E-4 [delta K/
K]/ deg.F and nine operable MSSVs per SG. The analyses performed 
confirmed that the existing safety analysis (i.e., the analysis of 
record) for PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 will remain valid for 102% rated 
thermal power operation with one MSSV inoperable in each SG. That 
is, the reactor coolant system (RCS) and secondary system design 
pressure limits will not be exceeded.
    The analysis of the pressure peaking events was conservative and 
included the following:
    (1) The actual MTC expected for full power operation for the 
remainder of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 is more negative, and thus more 
beneficial, than the -1.0 E-4 [delta K/K]/ deg.F used in the 
reanalysis (actual MTC measured on October 20, 1994 was -2.039 E-4 
[delta K/K]/ deg.F). Thus, the mitigating affect on peak system 
pressures would be expected to be even greater then those reported 
herein.
    (2) The core parameters used in the reanalysis (other than MTC) 
are generic and selected in the most adverse direction. Less adverse 
cycle specific or time-in-cycle specific values were not used in the 
reanalysis of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5.
    (3) The inoperable MSSVs are assumed to be in the first bank of 
MSSVs which have the lowest lift setpoint pressure (i.e., 1303 
psia). In fact, one of the two MSSVs currently inoperable is from 
the third bank of MSSVs (with a higher lift setpoint of 1370 psia) 
and the other MSSV is in the first bank. If the actual MSSV lift 
setpoint pressures had been simulated, the results would be less 
adverse since there would be more relief capacity near the beginning 
of the event to reduce the pressure peak.
    Standard 2--Does the proposed change create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed TS amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The analyses performed demonstrates that the current 
licensing basis analyses results remain valid at 102% rated thermal 
power with one MSSV inoperable in each SG and that all safety system 
settings will remain unchanged. The PVNGS TS currently allows 
operation at 98.2% Maximum Steady State Power Level (ACTION a. of 
Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.1.1) with one inoperable MSSV 
per SG. The analysis shows that for the current Unit 1 fuel cycle, 
operation at 102% Maximum Steady State Power Level with one 
inoperable MSSV per SG is acceptable.
    Standard 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    The proposed TS amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. There is no reduction in the margin 
of safety since the analysis performed, crediting the remaining 
operable MSSVs, shows the results of the analysis of record remain 
valid. That is, the RCS and secondary system design pressure limits 
will not be exceeded at 102% rated thermal power with one MSSV 
inoperable in each SG. In addition, all other safety limits and 
safety system settings remain unchanged. The actual MTC expected for 
full power operation for the remainder of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 is 
more negative, and thus more beneficial, than the -1.0 E-4 [deltaP 
K/K]/ deg.F used in the reanalysis study (actual MTC measured on 
October 20, 1994, was -2.039 E-4 [delta K/K]/ deg.F).

    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 NR 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 15-days after 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 15-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 15-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. 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing the petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By December 19, 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 petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the 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 a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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, 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 the 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 petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated November 22, 1994, 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, 12 East 
McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linh N. Tran,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-29659 Filed 12-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M