[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55148-55151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27654]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. STN 50-530]


Arizona Public Service Company; 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-74, issued to Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the licensee) 
for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Unit 3 located in 
Maricopa County, Arizona.
    The proposed amendment would clarify the power level threshold at 
which certain reactor protective system (RPS) instrumentation trips 
must be enabled and may be bypassed, and clarify that this level is a 
percentage of the neutron flux at rated thermal power (RTP). The bypass 
power level, 1E-4% RTP, would be specified as logarithmic power instead 
of thermal power. The intent of (and the implementation of) the 1E-4% 
RTP RPS instrumentation bypass threshold level in the technical 
specifications (TS) has always been that this power level is neutron 
power, which would be indicated by logarithmic power, and is not the 
heat transfer from the reactor core to the coolant, including decay 
heat, which is the thermal power definition in the TS.
    This exigent situation for PVNGS Unit 3 exists because the current 
``THERMAL POWER'' and ``RATED THERMAL POWER'' (RTP) wording in the 
PVNGS TS, when interpreted literally in its application in TS Table 
3.3.1-1 footnote (b), could prevent the resumption of operation of the 
unit following its current refueling outage. This exigent situation 
could not have been avoided because, although this wording has existed 
in the PVNGS TS since initial licensing, it was not identified as a 
potential source of conflict until APS learned on or about September 
24, 1998, of emergency TS amendment requests by Southern California 
Edison Company, for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and 
Entergy Corporation, for the Waterford Nuclear Station.
    The literal interpretation of ``THERMAL POWER'' in TS Table 3.3.1-1 
footnote (b) could prevent the return to power operation of a shutdown 
reactor. This footnote specifies that the local power density--high 
trip and departure from nucleate boiling ratio-low trip may be bypassed 
when thermal power is less than 1E-4% RTP, and that the bypass must be 
automatically removed when thermal power is at or above 1E-4% RTP. 
Since thermal power, as defined in TS Section 1.1, includes decay heat, 
and decay heat would remain above 1E-4% RTP for a considerable time 
after shutdown, the literal interpretation of thermal power would 
effectively prevent the local power density and departure from nucleate 
boiling ratio trips from being bypassed during a normal outage, which 
would prevent low power testing and subsequent startup.
    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

[[Page 55149]]

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:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change would replace the words ``THERMAL POWER'' 
with ``logarithmic power'' for the 1E-4% rated thermal power (RTP) 
level threshold in Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance 
requirement SR 3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnote (d) for 
the reactor protective system (RPS) instrumentation. The purpose of 
the 1E-4% RTP threshold is to (1) specify the power, below which, 
the logarithmic power level trip is required to be operable and 
surveilled, and (2) specify the power, above which, the local power 
density (LPD) and departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) trips 
are required to be operable. For these purposes, the appropriate 
power threshold should be logarithmic power, which is the power 
indicated on the logarithmic nuclear instrumentation, and not 
thermal power. Thermal power is defined in TS section 1.1 as the 
total reactor heat transfer rate to the reactor coolant, and would 
include decay heat. Thermal power would therefore not drop to 1E-4% 
RTP for a considerable period of time after shutdown, and would not 
provide the plant protective function correlation required at 1E-4% 
neutron RTP. However, logarithmic power, which is indicated by 
neutron flux, does provide the plant protective function correlation 
required at 1E-4% neutron RTP for the required reactor trips as 
required by safety analyses. The logarithmic power level of 1E-4% 
neutron RTP nominally correlates to the neutron flux measured by the 
excore neutron instrumentation that is 1E-4% of the neutron flux at 
100% RTP (3876 MWt) measured by the excore neutron instrumentation.
    The proposed editorial amendment would also replace ``RTP'' with 
``NRTP,'' in Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance 
requirement SR 3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnotes (c) and 
(d). A definition would be added for NRTP (nuclear rated thermal 
power) in section 1.1 as the indicated neutron flux at RTP. These 
editorial clarifications will reflect the fact that the logarithmic 
power level of 1E-4% is not a percentage of the ``total reactor core 
heat transfer rate to the reactor coolant of 3876 MWt,'' as RTP is 
defined in section TS 1.1, but is instead a percentage of the 
indicated neutron flux at RTP.
    An editorial change is also proposed to specify NRTP as the 
``ALLOWABLE VALUE'' parameter for the high logarithmic power level 
trip setpoint in Table 3.3.1-1 to correct the unintended omission of 
the trip setpoint parameter during preparation of the Improved 
Technical Specifications. This change will fill in the omitted 
parameter with the correct parameter of NRTP that is also consistent 
with the high logarithmic power trip setpoint parameter in Table 
3.3.2-1.
    These changes do not constitute a physical change to the Unit or 
make changes in the RPS instrumentation setpoints, system logic or 
manual actuation. In addition, these changes do not alter physical 
plant equipment or the way in which plant equipment is operated. 
This change is editorial in that it corrects the TS wording to match 
the appropriate power parameter that was originally intended and 
required by safety analyses, and that has been implemented since 
original licensing of the PVNGS plants. Therefore, these changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change would replace the words ``THERMAL POWER'' 
with ``logarithmic power'' for the 1E-4% RTP level threshold in 
Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance requirement SR 
3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnote (d) for the RPS 
instrumentation. The purpose of the 1E-4% RTP threshold is to (1) 
specify the power, below which, the logarithmic power level trip is 
required to be operable and surveilled, and (2) specify the power, 
above which, the LPD and DNBR trips are required to be operable. For 
these purposes, the appropriate power threshold should be 
logarithmic power, which is the power indicated on the logarithmic 
nuclear instrumentation, and not thermal power. Thermal power is 
defined in TS section 1.1 as the total reactor heat transfer rate to 
the reactor coolant, and would include decay heat. Thermal power 
would therefore not drop to 1E-4% RTP for a considerable period of 
time after shutdown, and would not provide the plant protective 
function correlation required at 1E-4% neutron RTP. However, 
logarithmic power, which is indicated by neutron flux, does provide 
the plant protective function correlation required at 1E-4% neutron 
RTP for the required reactor trips as required by safety analyses.
    The proposed editorial amendment would also replace ``RTP'' with 
``NRTP,'' in Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance 
requirement SR 3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnotes (c) and 
(d). A definition would be added for NRTP (nuclear rated thermal 
power) in section 1.1 as the indicated neutron flux at RTP. These 
editorial clarifications will reflect the fact that the logarithmic 
power level of 1E-4% is not a percentage of the ``total reactor core 
heat transfer rate to the reactor coolant of 3876 MWt,'' as RTP is 
defined in section TS 1.1, but is instead a percentage of the 
indicated neutron flux at RTP.
    An editorial change is also proposed to specify NRTP as the 
``ALLOWABLE VALUE'' parameter for the high logarithmic power level 
trip setpoint in Table 3.3.1-1 to correct the unintended omission of 
the trip setpoint parameter during preparation of the Improved 
Technical Specifications. This change will fill in the omitted 
parameter with the correct parameter of NRTP that is also consistent 
with the high logarithmic power trip setpoint parameter in Table 
3.3.2-1.
    These changes do not constitute a physical change to the Unit or 
make changes in the RPS instrumentation setpoints, system logic or 
manual actuation. In addition, these changes do not alter physical 
plant equipment or the way in which plant equipment is operated. The 
proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation 
or new accident precursors. This change is editorial in that it 
corrects the TS wording to match the appropriate power parameter 
that was originally intended and required by safety analyses, and 
that has been implemented since original licensing of the PVNGS 
plants. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change would replace the words ``THERMAL POWER'' 
with ``logarithmic power'' for the 1E-4% RTP level threshold in 
Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance requirement SR 
3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnote (d) for the RPS 
instrumentation. The purpose of the 1E-4% RTP threshold is to (1) 
specify the power, below which, the logarithmic power level trip is 
required to be operable and surveilled, and (2) specify the power, 
above which, the LPD and DNBR trips are required to be operable. For 
these purposes, the appropriate power threshold should be 
logarithmic power, which is the power indicated on the logarithmic 
nuclear instrumentation, and not thermal power. Thermal power is 
defined in TS section 1.1 as the total reactor heat transfer rate to 
the reactor coolant, and would include decay heat. Thermal power 
would therefore not drop to 1E-4% RTP for a considerable period of 
time after shutdown, and would not provide the plant protective 
function correlation required at 1E-4% neutron RTP. However, 
logarithmic power, which is indicated by neutron flux, does provide 
the plant protective function correlation required at 1E-4% neutron 
RTP for the required reactor trips as required by safety analyses.
    The proposed editorial amendment would also replace ``RTP'' with 
``NRTP,'' in Table 3.3.1-1 footnotes (a) and (b), surveillance 
requirement SR 3.3.1.7 Note 2, and Table 3.3.2-1 footnotes (c) and 
(d). A definition would be added for NRTP (nuclear rated thermal 
power) in section 1.1 as the indicated neutron flux at RTP. These 
editorial clarifications will reflect the fact that the logarithmic 
power level of 1E-4% is not a percentage of the ``total reactor core 
heat transfer rate to the reactor coolant of 3876 MWt,'' as RTP is 
defined in section TS 1.1, but is instead a percentage of the 
indicated neutron flux at RTP.
    An editorial change is also proposed to specify NRTP as the 
``ALLOWABLE VALUE'' parameter for the high logarithmic power level 
trip setpoint in Table 3.3.1-1 to correct the unintended omission of 
the trip setpoint parameter during preparation of the

[[Page 55150]]

Improved Technical Specifications. This change will fill in the 
omitted parameter with the correct parameter of NRTP that is also 
consistent with the high logarithmic power trip setpoint parameter 
in Table 3.3.2-1.
    These changes do not constitute a physical change to the Unit or 
make changes in the RPS instrumentation setpoints, system logic or 
manual actuation. In addition, these changes do not alter physical 
plant equipment or the way in which plant equipment is operated. 
This change is editorial in that it corrects the TS wording to match 
the appropriate power parameter that was originally intended and 
required by safety analyses, and that has been implemented since 
original licensing of the PVNGS plants. Therefore, this change 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, 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 November 13, 1998, 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, and at the local public 
document room located at the Phoenix Public Library, 1221 N. Central 
Avenue, 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.

[[Page 55151]]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should 
also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 6, 1998, 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 
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of October 1998.
Mel B. Fields,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-27654 Filed 10-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P