[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49527-49529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 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 License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 issued to Arizona Public Service Company
(the licensee) for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
The proposed amendments in the licensee's application dated
November 7, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated April 25, July 10,
and July 30, 2003, would revise TS 3.2.4, ``Departure From Nucleate
Boiling Ratio (DNBR),'' TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective System (RPS)
Instrumentation--Operating,'' TS 3.3.3, ``Control Element Assembly
Calculators (CEACs),'' and TS 5.4.1, ``Administrative Controls--
Procedures.'' The proposed changes are to Limiting Conditions for
Operation (LCOs), LCO Actions, LCO Surveillance Requirements, and the
procedures used to modify the core protection calculator addressable
constants. The amendments support the replacement of the Core
Protection Calculator System (CPCS). The replacement CPCS will perform
functionally identical safety-related algorithms as the existing CPCS,
although on a newer platform, and the CPCS design function will remain
unchanged. Because the replacement CPCS for each unit will be installed
in refueling outages for the three units over at least a year, starting
with the Unit 2 fall 2003 outage, the licensee has proposed to have the
TSs contain both the current requirements and the new requirements with
the phrases ``(Before CPC Upgrade)'' and ``(After CPC Upgrade)'' on the
TSs to show which requirements apply to which case.
The application was noticed in the Federal Register on December 10,
2002 (67 FR 75868) for the changes to TSs 3.2.4, 3.3.1, and 3.3.3.
Since that notice, the licensee has submitted its supplemental letter
dated July 30, 2003, which provided an additional proposed change to TS
5.4.1, ``Administrative Controls--Procedures.'' This additional
proposed change is related to the procedures used to modify the CPCS
addressable constants.
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 title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 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:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 49528]]
The Core Protection Calculator System (CPCS) is being replaced
due primarily to parts obsolescence. The replacement CPCS will
perform functionally identical safety-related algorithms as the
existing CPCS, but on a newer platform. The CPCS design function
will remain unchanged.
The physical location of the replacement CPCS will be the same
as the existing CPCS in the auxiliary protective cabinets.
Installation will occur during refueling outages when the system is
not required for service. [The] majority of the testing will be
performed prior to installation.
The CPCS is not an initiator of any analyzed accident, but is
used for mitigation of a large number of anticipated operational
occurrences and a small number of accidents. Since the CPCS is not
an accident initiator, and the replacement CPCS is functionally
unchanged, the CPCS replacement will not increase the probability of
an accident.
The functionality of the existing CPCS safety related algorithms
are replicated in the System Requirements Specification for the
Common Q [Common Qualified] Core Protection Calculator System. The
basic Common Q CPCS design concept was approved by NRC Safety
Evaluation (SE), Acceptance For Referencing Of Topical Report CENPD-
396-P, Rev. 01, ``Common Qualified Platform'' and Appendices 1, 2, 3
and 4, Rev. 01, dated August 11, 2000 (Ref. 2 [listed in the
enclosure to the amendment request]), and there have been no
significant functional changes to the design as presented. The
requirements for response time and accuracy that are assumed in the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analysis will continue to be met.
Therefore, since the new [replacement] CPCS will be capable of
performing the same safety-related functions within the same
response time and accuracy as the existing CPCS, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The CPCS provides a monitoring and detection function and is not
an initiator for any accident. The CPCS provides Reactor Protection
System (RPS) trips on Low Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio
(DNBR) and High Local Power Density (LPD) in response to
calculations involving several input variables. It also provides a
Control Element Assembly Withdrawal Prohibit (CWP) signal to the
Plant Protection System (PPS), and provides indication and
annunciation. The CPCS performs no other plant functions, and is not
used to initiate any ESF [(Engineered Safety Feature)] functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The [new] CPCS is a replacement for the existing CPCS. It will
retain the same safety-related functionality as the existing CPCS.
The equipment will be qualified in accordance with requirements
described in the Palo Verde UFSAR.
The replacement CPCS will perform functionally identical safety-
related algorithms as the existing CPCS, will trip in response to
the same inputs with equivalent accuracy, and will meet the same
four channel separation requirements. The only significant area of
difference involves the platform. The Common Q platform uses a
consistent set of qualified building blocks (Advant Controllers,
Flat Panel Displays, Power Supplies, and Communication Systems) that
can be used for any safety system application. For Palo Verde
purposes, the only application of this platform at this time will be
for use as a CPCS. The new platform will include improved human
factors and fault tolerance within each CPCS channel.
In summary, the replacement CPCS performs the same functions as
the existing CPCS, meets the qualification requirements of the
existing CPCS, and meets the accuracy standards of the existing
CPCS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, APS [(the licensee)] concludes that the
proposed amendments(s) present no significant hazards consideration
under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly,
a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendments before the expiration
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is
that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will consider all public and State comments
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in
the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity
for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to
take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the 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. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By September 17, 2003, the licensee may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject
facility operating licenses 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, located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland, and available electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected]. 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
[[Page 49529]]
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendments and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendments.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the
above date. Because of the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail
to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for
leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the
Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A
copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene
should also be sent to Kenneth C. Manne, Senior Attorney, Arizona
Public Service Company, P.O. Box 52034, MS 7636, Phoenix, Arizona
85072-2034, 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 amendments dated November 7, 2002, as supplemented by
letters dated April 25, July 10, and July 30, 2003, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-20996 Filed 8-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P