[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