[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56369-56372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27209]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. STN 50-528]


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-41 issued to Arizona Public Service Company for operation of the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 located in Maricopa 
County, Arizona.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' to waive, on a one-time 
basis, the requirement to perform Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.8 
for Unit 1 channels A, B, and C.
    Battery replacement in Unit 1 was scheduled to be completed during 
the current refueling outage (1R08, Fall 1999). Because of problems 
experienced by the vendor of the low specific gravity rectangular cell 
batteries, four acceptable batteries are not available and the planned 
battery replacement will not be completed as planned. Unit 1 will, 
therefore, need to operate for one more cycle with the high specific 
gravity round cell batteries.
    Because the high specific gravity round cell batteries will remain 
in Unit 1 for an additional cycle, the licensee is required to perform 
a performance discharge test or a modified performance discharge test 
in accordance with TS SR 3.8.4.8. SR 3.8.4.8 requires that a 
performance discharge test be performed to verify battery capacity on a 
60-month frequency. The specified frequency for this SR, including the 
additional time allowed by SR 3.0.2 (1.25 times the interval specified 
in the frequency), for

[[Page 56370]]

three of the Unit 1 batteries (channels A, B, and C) will be exceeded 
starting in December 1999. The channel D performance discharge test is 
not due until the next Unit 1 refueling outage (1R09, Spring 2001).
    The licensee states that this condition could not be avoided since 
Palo Verde had planned to replace the batteries during the current Unit 
1 refueling outage and the battery vendor was not able to provide four 
qualified batteries in time for the outage. As late as September 10, 
1999, the vendor was still confident that it could provide the 
replacement batteries for Unit 1. Only two of the four replacement 
batteries have been received on site.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    Standard 1--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The DC power sources are required to ensure that sufficient 
power is available to supply safety-related equipment required for 
safe plant shutdown and the mitigation and control of accident 
conditions. Since the batteries are not accident initiators and are 
intended to mitigate the consequences of an accident, the delay of 
the performance discharge test does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The purpose of SR 3.8.4.8 is to determine overall battery 
degradation due to age and usage. This information is then used to 
determine the expected service life of the battery and when the 
battery needs to be replaced. The last performance discharge test of 
the batteries showed that the Unit 1 batteries were capable of 
supplying over 100 percent of their rated capacity. The highest 
design basis load demand for these batteries is less than 50 percent 
of the actual rated capacity of the batteries. There is over 100 
percent margin for these batteries. Therefore, the batteries 
currently have a high capacity and a large margin above the needed 
capacity.
    Since the battery capacity has remained well over 100 percent 
for two performance discharge tests for channels A, B, and C and for 
a third performance discharge test for channel D, and the batteries 
have been installed for less than eight years, deferring the 
performance discharge test for 18 months will not result in 
overestimating the expected service life of the batteries.
    Since the batteries will be replaced during the next (ninth) 
refueling outage the remaining installed life of these batteries is 
18 months. To demonstrate design basis capability and operability 
for this period, the service test in SR 3.8.4.7, in addition to the 
other surveillance tests required by Technical Specification 3.8.4 
and Technical Specification 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters,'' will 
be performed in lieu of the performance discharge test.
    The proposed change does not result in any hardware changes or 
changes to plant operating practices, nor does it affect plant 
operation. Therefore, since the batteries have high capacity and 
significant margin and will perform their design function as 
intended, this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
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 change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The DC power sources are required to ensure that sufficient 
power is available to supply safety-related equipment required for 
safe plant shutdown and the mitigation and control of accident 
conditions. The purpose of SR 3.8.4.8 is to determine overall 
battery degradation due to age and usage. This information is then 
used to determine the expected service life of the battery and when 
the battery needs to be replaced. The last performance discharge 
test of the batteries showed that the Unit 1 batteries were capable 
of supplying over 100 percent of their rated capacity. The highest 
design basis load demand for these batteries is less than 50 percent 
of the actual rated capacity of the batteries. There is over 100 
percent margin for these batteries. Therefore, the batteries 
currently have a high capacity and a large margin above the needed 
capacity.
    Since the battery capacity has remained well over 100 percent 
for two performance discharge tests for channels A, B, and C and for 
a third performance discharge test for channel D, and the batteries 
have been installed for less than eight years, deferring the 
performance discharge test for 18 months will not result in 
overestimating the expected service life of the batteries.
    Since the batteries will be replaced during the next (ninth) 
refueling outage the remaining installed life of these batteries is 
18 months. To demonstrate design basis capability and operability 
for this period, the service test in SR 3.8.4.7, in addition to the 
other surveillance tests required by Technical Specification 3.8.4 
and Technical Specification 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters,'' will 
be performed in lieu of the performance discharge test.
    The proposed change does not change the plant design or 
configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed), or change the method of operation of the plant. The 
batteries have high capacity and significant margin and will perform 
their design function as intended. Therefore, this change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    Standard 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    No. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed amendment would waive, on a one time basis, the 
requirement to perform SR 3.8.4.8 for Unit 1 channels A, B, and C. 
The surveillance requirement would be waived until the next 
refueling outage for Unit 1 (1R09 Spring 2001). The purpose of the 
battery performance test required by this surveillance requirement 
is to determine overall battery degradation due to age and usage. 
This information is then used to determine the expected service life 
of the battery and when the battery needs to be replaced. The last 
performance discharge test of the batteries showed that the Unit 1 
batteries were capable of supplying over 100 percent of their 
capacity. The highest design basis load demand for these batteries 
is less than 50 percent of the actual rated capacity of the 
batteries. There is over 100 percent margin for these batteries. 
Therefore, the batteries currently have a high capacity and a large 
margin above the needed capacity.
    Since the battery capacity has remained well over 100 percent 
for two performance discharge tests for channels A, B, and C and for 
a third performance discharge test for channel D, and the batteries 
have been installed for less than eight years, deferring the 
performance discharge test for 18 months will not result in 
overestimating the expected service life of the batteries.
    Since the batteries will be replaced during the next (ninth) 
refueling outage the remaining installed life of these batteries is 
18 months. To demonstrate design basis capability and operability 
for this period, the service test in SR 3.8.4.7, in addition to the 
other surveillance tests required by Technical Specification 3.8.4 
and Technical Specification 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters,'' will 
be performed in lieu of the performance discharge test.
    The batteries have demonstrated that they have a high capacity, 
they have been installed for only a short duration of their expected 
service life, they have a large margin above the needed capacity, 
and will perform their design function as intended. Therefore, this 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.


[[Page 56371]]


    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 18, 1999, 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. 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

[[Page 56372]]

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 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nageswaran Kalyanam,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-27209 Filed 10-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P