Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. STN 50-528]

Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit No. 1; 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 the Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the

licensee), for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,

Unit No. 1, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The proposed amendment would add a note to the Palo Verde Unit 1

Technical Specification Table 3.7-2. The note would allow continued

operation of Unit 1 during Cycle 5 at 100 percent maximum steady state

power level with one main steam safety valve (MSSV) inoperable per

steam generator. This note applies only during the current fuel cycle

(Cycle 5) for Unit 1.

This amendment is being requested on an exigent basis to return

Unit 1 to 100% power because the current condition (one inoperable MSSV

per SG), is limiting Unit 1 to 98.2% power until the next refueling

outage (the next Unit 1 refueling, Cycle 6, is scheduled for April

1995).

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?

The proposed technical specification (TS) amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of

an accident previously evaluated. The primary pressure peaking

events [loss of condenser vacuum (LOCV), feedwater line break (FLB),

and control element assembly (CEA) ejection events] were analyzed to

provide a comparison of pressure response using a base case with a

moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) of 0.0 [deltaP K/K]/ deg.F

and ten operable main steam safety valves (MSSVs) per steam

generator (SG) and a second case using an MTC of -1.0 E-4 [delta K/

K]/ deg.F and nine operable MSSVs per SG. The analyses performed

confirmed that the existing safety analysis (i.e., the analysis of

record) for PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 will remain valid for 102% rated

thermal power operation with one MSSV inoperable in each SG. That

is, the reactor coolant system (RCS) and secondary system design

pressure limits will not be exceeded.

The analysis of the pressure peaking events was conservative and

included the following:

(1) The actual MTC expected for full power operation for the

remainder of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 is more negative, and thus more

beneficial, than the -1.0 E-4 [delta K/K]/ deg.F used in the

reanalysis (actual MTC measured on October 20, 1994 was -2.039 E-4

[delta K/K]/ deg.F). Thus, the mitigating affect on peak system

pressures would be expected to be even greater then those reported

herein.

(2) The core parameters used in the reanalysis (other than MTC)

are generic and selected in the most adverse direction. Less adverse

cycle specific or time-in-cycle specific values were not used in the

reanalysis of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5.

(3) The inoperable MSSVs are assumed to be in the first bank of

MSSVs which have the lowest lift setpoint pressure (i.e., 1303

psia). In fact, one of the two MSSVs currently inoperable is from

the third bank of MSSVs (with a higher lift setpoint of 1370 psia)

and the other MSSV is in the first bank. If the actual MSSV lift

setpoint pressures had been simulated, the results would be less

adverse since there would be more relief capacity near the beginning

of the event to reduce the pressure peak.

Standard 2--Does the proposed change create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed TS amendment does not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated. The analyses performed demonstrates that the current

licensing basis analyses results remain valid at 102% rated thermal

power with one MSSV inoperable in each SG and that all safety system

settings will remain unchanged. The PVNGS TS currently allows

operation at 98.2% Maximum Steady State Power Level (ACTION a. of

Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.1.1) with one inoperable MSSV

per SG. The analysis shows that for the current Unit 1 fuel cycle,

operation at 102% Maximum Steady State Power Level with one

inoperable MSSV per SG is acceptable.

Standard 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed TS amendment will not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety. There is no reduction in the margin

of safety since the analysis performed, crediting the remaining

operable MSSVs, shows the results of the analysis of record remain

valid. That is, the RCS and secondary system design pressure limits

will not be exceeded at 102% rated thermal power with one MSSV

inoperable in each SG. In addition, all other safety limits and

safety system settings remain unchanged. The actual MTC expected for

full power operation for the remainder of PVNGS Unit 1, Cycle 5 is

more negative, and thus more beneficial, than the -1.0 E-4 [deltaP

K/K]/ deg.F used in the reanalysis study (actual MTC measured on

October 20, 1994, was -2.039 E-4 [delta K/K]/ deg.F).

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 NR 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 15-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 15-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 15-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 Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications,

Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, 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 the petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By December 19, 1994, 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 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, 12 East McDowell

Road, 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, Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above

date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the

Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)

248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator

should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following

message addressed to Theodore R. Quay: petitioner's name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and

page number of the Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 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 November 22, 1994, 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, 12 East

McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linh N. Tran,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-29659 Filed 12-1-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M