[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21863]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530]
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station; 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 Nos.
41, 51, and 74, issued to Arizona Public Services Company for operation
of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2 and 3,
respectively, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
The proposed amendment would add the analytical method supplement
entitled ``Calculative Methods for the CE Large Break LOCA Evaluation
Model for the Analysis of CE and W Designed NSSS,'' CENPD-132,
Supplement 3-P-A, dated June 1985, to the list of analytical methods in
TS Section 6.9.1.10 used to determine the PVNGS core operating limits.
Additionally, further administrative changes are proposed to the list
of analytical methods.
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.
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 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 considerations, which is presented
below:
Standard 1--Does the proposed amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of
any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an
accident. The proposed change simply adds an NRC-approved LOCA [loss
of coolant accident] evaluation methodology to the list of
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits. The
proposed change does not alter the conditions or assumptions in any
of the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] accident
analyses. Since the UFSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the
radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely
affected by the proposed change. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the proposed change to Section 6.9.1.10 does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Standard 2--Does the proposed amendment create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of
any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an
accident. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for
any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new
limiting failure been identified as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed change to Section
6.9.1.10 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Standard 3--Does the proposed amendment involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change is administrative in nature in that an NRC-
approved LOCA evaluation methodology is being added to the list of
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits. Since
the core operating limits are still being established by an NRC-
approved methodology and will provide adequate core protection, the
proposed amendment 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 of 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 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 amendment 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 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 20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By October 6, 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 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 20555 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 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, 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 20555, 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 this 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 petitioners 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)-(r) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated August 18, 1994, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local
public document room located at Phoenix Public Library, 12 East
McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Holian,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-21863 Filed 9-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
