[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2160-2162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-319]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Arizona Public Service Company; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed no Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 issued to Arizona Public Service Company for 
Operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 
3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
    The proposed amendments would change the refueling machine overload 
cutoff limit from less than or equal to 1556 pounds to less than or 
equal to 1600 pounds. The change is a consequence of the fuel assembly 
weight increase which resulted from design and fabrication 
improvements.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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 amendments 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 amendment to sections 3.9.6 
and 4.9.6.1 provides a revised refueling machine hoist overload 
cutoff limit that is appropriate for the increased weight of the 
fuel assemblies. The increased weight of fuel assemblies results 
from design and fabrication improvements such as denser fuel 
pellets, laser welded GUARDIANTN grids, and laser welded spacer 
grids. The weight of a fuel assembly is identified in the UFSAR as a 
parameter in the analysis for a Fuel Handling Accident. The 
radiological consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident were 
reevaluated in order to incorporate fuel assembly design changes 
including increases in the fuel assembly weight and increases of the 
maximum fuel enrichment. The analysis used a fuel assembly enriched 
to 4.3 weight percent and the power assigned to the assembly was 
1.65 times the average power per assembly. The accident is assumed 
to occur 100 hours after reactor shutdown and it is also assumed 
that all 236 fuel rods fail. The resultant thyroid dose at the 2 
hour exclusion area boundary is 71.5 rem which meets the Standard 
Review Plan 15.7.4 limit of 75 rem. The conclusions for the 
radiological consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident remain 
consistent with the results in the Safety Evaluation Report. The 
increased weight of the fuel assemblies was reviewed, separate from 
this proposal, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 
found to be acceptable, as described above.
    The increase in the refueling machine overload cutoff limit does 
not impact the manner in which the refueling machine is operated or 
the manner in which the fuel assemblies are engaged and lifted. The 
overload cutoff limit is not a parameter used in the analysis of a 
Fuel Handling Accident. The overload cutoff limit was incorporated 
on the refueling machine hoist to protect the core internals and 
pressure vessel from [[Page 2161]] possible damage in the event the 
fuel assembly becomes mechanically bound as it is withdrawn from the 
reactor vessel. The proposed overload cutoff limit was determined as 
follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max 
Wet Fuel Weight)+90lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.
(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

    The basis for the 90 pounds had two considerations: (1) to be 
large enough to account for friction loads during fuel assembly 
withdrawal; and, (2) to be small enough to ensure that while lifting 
a minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads imposed on a mechanically 
bound fuel assembly are below the design limit specified by the fuel 
manufacturer. The maximum value for the existing overload cut off 
limit was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be 1602 pounds.
    The revised overload cut off limit does not decrease the factor 
of safety for the refueling machine hoist below the Crane 
Manufacturer's [sic] Association of America (CMAA) Standard 70 
required value of 5/1.
    Therefore, the proposed change for the refueling machine 
overload cut off limit will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated and 
will remain bounded by the accident analysis of Chapter 15 of the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Standard 2--Does the proposed change create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed Technical Specification amendment to Sections 3.9.6 
and 4.9.6.1 would provide a revised refueling machine hoist overload 
cut off limit that is appropriate for the increased weight of the 
fuel assemblies. The increased weight of fuel assemblies results 
from design and fabrication improvements such as denser fuel 
pellets, laser welded GUARDIANTM grids, and laser welded spacer 
grids. The fuel overload cut off limit was incorporated on the 
refueling machine hoist to protect the core internals and pressure 
vessel from possible damage in the event the fuel assembly becomes 
mechanically bound as it is withdrawn from the reactor vessel. The 
proposed overload cut off limit was determined as follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max 
Wet Fuel Weight)+90 lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.
(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

    The basis for the 90 pounds had two considerations: (1) to be 
large enough to account for friction loads during fuel assembly 
withdrawal; and, (2) to be small enough to ensure that while lifting 
a minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads imposed on a mechanically 
bound fuel assembly are below the design limit specified by the fuel 
manufacturer. The maximum value for the existing overload cut off 
limit was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be 1602 pounds to 
limit the potential for damage to the fuel assemblies.
    The accident of concern related to the change in the refueling 
machine overload cut off limit is the Fuel Handling Accident. This 
accident occurs when a fuel bundle becomes disengaged from the 
refueling machine grapple. The change of the refueling machine 
overload cut off limit does not change the way in which the 
refueling machine grapple engages the fuel assemblies. Since fuel 
handling is the subject of change, no new or different kinds of 
accidents are created.
    Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed change to 
Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6.1 will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Standard 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed Technical Specification amendment to Sections 3.9.6 
and 4.9.6.1 would provide a revised refueling machine hoist overload 
cut off limit that is appropriate for the increased weight of the 
fuel assemblies. The increased weight of fuel assemblies results 
from design and fabrication improvements such as denser fuel 
pellets, laser welded GUARDIANTM grids, and laser welded spacer 
grids. The overload cut off limit was incorporated on the refueling 
machine hoist to protect the core internals and pressure vessel from 
possible damage in the event the fuel assembly becomes mechanically 
bound as it is withdrawn from the reactor vessel. The proposed 
overload cut off limit was determined as follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max 
Wet Fuel Weight)+90 lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.
(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

    The basis for the 90 pounds had two considerations: (1) to be 
large enough to account for friction loads during fuel assembly 
withdrawal; and, (2) to be small enough to ensure that while lifting 
a minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads imposed on a mechanically 
bound fuel assembly are below the design limit specified by the fuel 
manufacturer. The maximum value for the existing overload cut off 
limit was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be 1602 pounds.
    The overload cut off limit is not a parameter used in the 
analysis of a Fuel Handling Accident. The conclusion regarding the 
radiological consequences of the Fuel Handling Accident remain 
valid, and there is no decrease in the margin of safety.
    Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed change will 
maintain the integrity of the fuel assemblies and reactor vessel 
internals and does not involve a significant reduction in the 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 after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By February 6, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
will respect to issuance of the amendments 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 [[Page 2162]] 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 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 amendments 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 
amendments and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    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 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 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 October 31, 1994, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 28, 1994, which are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Phoenix Public Library, 12 East McDowell 
Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of January 1995.

    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. 94-319 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M