[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