# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29659

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** December 2, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29659. Public record. Not legal advice.