[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50835-50838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24382]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530]


Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments 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 Licenses 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 revise Technical Specification (TS) 
3.7.15, ``Fuel Storage Pool Boron Concentration,'' TS 3.7.17, ``Spent 
Fuel Assembly Storage,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' to increase 
spent fuel pool storage capacity by crediting soluble boron and decay 
time in the safety analysis for the spent fuel pool storage racks. The 
proposed amendments would also increase the maximum radially averaged 
fuel enrichment from 4.3 weight percent to 4.8 weight percent.
    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?
    No. Analyses to support the proposed amendment have been 
developed using conservative methodology. An analysis and review of 
relevant plant operations shows that there is no significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The 
analysis of the potential events and of the increase in fuel 
enrichment discussed below also show that there is no significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The fuel handling accident described in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 15.7.4, ``Radiological Consequences 
of Fuel Handling Accidents'' was reviewed for this proposed 
amendment. The fuel handling accident that is of concern in the 
UFSAR is the dropping of a single fuel assembly during fuel 
handling. Changing the fuel assembly storage array and burnup versus 
enrichment criteria, crediting soluble boron in the spent fuel pool, 
and increasing

[[Page 50836]]

enrichment does not [a]ffect the method of handling spent fuel or 
the design of the fuel handling equipment. The fuel assembly design 
(clad material and structural components) is not affected by this 
change. Therefore, this change will not increase the probability 
that a fuel handling accident will occur.
    The current fuel handling accident analysis for Palo Verde 
assumes a TID-14844 (Technical Information Document), ``Calculation 
of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites'' equilibrium 
source term. The TID-14844 equilibrium source term is based on rated 
core thermal power and an infinite cycle. Therefore, the source term 
is independent of fuel assembly enrichment and fuel cycle length. As 
such, the proposed increase in maximum radially averaged enrichment 
for fuel assemblies stored in the spent fuel storage racks and the 
new fuel storage racks from 4.3 weight percent to 4.8 weight percent 
does not affect the dose calculation for the Palo Verde fuel 
handling accident analysis. Changing the fuel assembly storage array 
and burnup versus enrichment criteria, crediting soluble boron in 
the spent fuel pool, and increasing enrichment does not affect the 
spent fuel pool water level, water depth over a damaged fuel 
assembly, or the systems (e.g., fuel building essential ventilation 
system and radiation monitoring system) that may be available to 
reduce the doses associated with the current fuel handling accident 
analysis for Palo Verde. The radiological consequences of the fuel 
handling accident discussed in UFSAR section 15.7.4.1 remain 
bounding with these changes and are less than 10 CFR 100 limits, and 
therefore, this change will not increase the consequences of a fuel 
handling accident.
    Fuel assembly placement in the spent fuel pool will continue to 
be controlled by approved procedures and in accordance with the 
Technical Specification fuel storage configuration limits as it 
currently is. Therefore, this change will not increase the 
probability of an accidental misloading of a fuel assembly in the 
spent fuel pool.
    The consequences of a single fuel assembly misloaded into a 
region in the spent fuel pool intended for a less reactive fuel 
assembly were reviewed based on the proposed amendment. The maximum 
increase in the spent fuel pool effective multiplication factor 
(keff) due to a single misloaded fuel assembly was one of 
the factors used to determine the minimum soluble boron credit 
requirement. The minimum soluble boron credit required to maintain 
keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 (including all biases 
and uncertainties) assuming the most limiting single fuel assembly 
misloading event was determined to be 900 ppm. This is much less 
than the Technical Specification 3.7.15, ``Fuel Storage Pool Boron 
Concentration'' minimum boron requirement of 2150 ppm. Therefore, 
taking credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool to offset an 
increase in the number of fuel assemblies stored in the spent fuel 
pool and increasing maximum radially averaged enrichment does not 
[a]ffect the consequences of a fuel assembly misloading event since 
the keff for the spent fuel pool remains less than 0.95.
    The spent fuel pool cooling requirements are described in UFSAR 
section 9.1.3, ``Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System.'' The 
design basis of the spent fuel cooling system is to provide adequate 
cooling to the spent fuel during all operating conditions (including 
full core offload) for up to 1205 fuel assemblies. The proposed 
amendment will increase the spent fuel pool storage limit [to] 1205 
assemblies. This change does not affect the design basis spent fuel 
pool heat load calculation since the spent fuel pool will be limited 
to the design basis limit of 1205 fuel assemblies. This change does 
not affect the operation or function of the spent fuel pool cooling 
system. Therefore, since the design basis and operation of the spent 
fuel pool cooling system are not affected by this change, this 
change will not increase the probability or the consequences of a 
loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
    Technical Specification 4.3.1.2 requires that the new fuel 
storage racks be designed and maintained with a keff 
[less than or equal to] 0.95 when fully flooded with unborated water 
and keff [less than or equal to] 0.98 if moderated with 
aqueous foam (including all biases and uncertainties). The current 
analysis of record assumes a maximum radially averaged fuel 
enrichment of 4.3 weight percent to determine that the 
keff for the new fuel storage racks met these limits. A 
new analysis was performed to determine that the proposed increase 
in maximum radially averaged enrichment (i.e., from 4.3 to 4.8 
weight percent) would still meet the limits. The new analysis 
conservatively assumed a radially averaged enrichment of 5.0 weight 
percent U-235. Using a maximum radially averaged fuel enrichment of 
5.0 weight percent U-235, the new analysis determined that the 
keff for the new fuel storage racks would continue to be 
[less than or equal to] 0.95 when fully flooded with unborated water 
and [less than or equal to] 0.98 if moderated by aqueous foam 
(including all biases and uncertainties). The increased radially 
averaged enrichment will not affect the requirement to maintain the 
new fuel subcritical (Technical Specification 4.3.1.2.b and c) when 
stored in the new fuel storage racks. There will be no dose 
consequences associated with these changes, since the new fuel will 
continue to remain subcritical at all times. Therefore, since the 
criticality requirements are maintained, this change will not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
a criticality event in the new fuel storage racks.
    The current analysis of record for the new fuel elevator, the 
fuel upender and transfer machine, and the intermediate fuel storage 
rack assumes a maximum radially averaged fuel enrichment of 4.3 
weight percent with a resultant keff in unborated water 
of [less than or equal to] 0.95. Using a radially averaged 
enrichment of 5.0 weight percent, the new analysis determined that 
the keff in unborated water would continue to be [less 
than or equal to] 0.95 (including all biases and uncertainties). The 
increased radially averaged enrichment will not affect the 
requirement to maintain the fuel subcritical when in the new fuel 
elevator, the fuel upender and transfer machine, or the intermediate 
fuel storage rack. There will be no dose consequences associated 
with these changes, since the fuel will continue to remain 
subcritical at all times. Therefore, since the criticality 
requirements are maintained, this change will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a 
criticality event in this equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change crediting soluble boron and the 
increased maximum radially averaged enrichment will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Standard 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendment credits the negative reactivity 
associated with some of the soluble boron present in the spent fuel 
pool. Based on these changes, an analysis was performed to verify 
that the Palo Verde design has sufficient margin to detect and 
mitigate a boron dilution of the spent fuel pool prior to exceeding 
the spent fuel pool keff limit of 0.95 (including all 
biases and uncertainties). The analysis determined that the most 
limiting boron dilution event was a fire in the fuel building. 
Assuming a spent fuel pool average bulk boron concentration of 2150 
ppm (Technical Specification 3.7.15), this event would result in 
boron dilution to a minimum average bulk boron concentration of 1900 
ppm. This is much greater than the minimum 900 ppm boron 
concentration required to maintain keff [less than or 
equal to] 0.95 (assuming the most limiting single fuel assembly 
misloading event). Therefore, the spent fuel pool will remain 
subcritical following a boron dilution event. The analysis shows 
that there is no credible boron dilution event that would result in 
an inadvertent criticality in the spent fuel pool. In addition, the 
criticality analysis shows that even if the spent fuel pool were 
filled with unborated water, the spent fuel pool would remain 
subcritical.
    Taking credit for soluble boron does not make any change to the 
design or operation of the spent fuel racks, fuel assemblies, fuel 
handling equipment, or plant systems that can deliver non-borated 
water to the spent fuel pool. Increasing the maximum allowable 
radially averaged enrichment of the fuel assemblies in storage does 
not make any change to the design or operation of the fuel 
assemblies except to increase the allowed reactivity and fission 
product inventory of future assemblies, both of which are bounded by 
the new criticality analyses and the current fuel handling accident 
analysis (UFSAR 15.7.4). Since system interfaces and operating 
characteristics remain the same, no new fuel handling-related 
accident can be postulated.
    Therefore, the proposed change crediting soluble boron and the 
increased maximum radially averaged enrichment does 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?
    No. The Technical Specification changes in the proposed 
amendment, the proposed

[[Page 50837]]

spent fuel pool storage configuration, and the Technical 
Specification 3.7.15 requirement for minimum spent fuel boron 
concentration provide sufficient safety margin to ensure that the 
fuel assemblies stored in the spent fuel pool will remain 
subcritical. The criticality analysis, performed using the approved 
NRC methodology, shows that the minimum spent fuel pool soluble 
boron concentration in current Technical Specifications (2150 ppm) 
will maintain keff less than the maximum limit of 0.95. 
The criticality analyses determined that even with the spent fuel 
pool filled with unborated water, keff would remain below 
1.0 (including all biases and uncertainties). Soluble boron is used 
to offset uncertainties, tolerances, and off-normal conditions and 
to provide subcritical margin so that the spent fuel pool 
keff will remain less than or equal to 0.95 at all times. 
A boron dilution was also evaluated and it was determined that the 
spent fuel pool boron concentration could not be reduced below the 
minimum boron concentration (900 ppm) required by the criticality 
analysis. Therefore, even with a boron dilution event the spent fuel 
pool keff will remain less than or equal to 0.95.
    Therefore, the proposed change crediting soluble boron and the 
increased maximum radially averaged enrichment 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 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 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 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 October 20, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with 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 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 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,

[[Page 50838]]

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 20555-0001, 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 close of business on 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).
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 8, 1999, 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 9th day of September, 1999.
Nageswaran Kalyanam,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-24382 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P