[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62079-62081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25146]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 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 (the licensee), for
operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit 1,
located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
The proposed amendment would revise item a.10, definition of steam
generator (SG) tube inspection, in Section 5.5.9.4, ``Acceptance
Criteria,'' of Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator
(SG) Tube Surveillance Program,'' which is in the administrative
controls section of the plant TSs. The proposed amendment would revise
the scope of the required inspection of the tube in the SG tubesheet
region. The amendment is based on the Westinghouse report, WCAP-15947,
``NDE Inspection Strategy For the Tubesheet Region in PVNGS Unit 1,''
Revision 0. A proprietary and non-proprietary version of the report was
submitted with the licensee's application.
In the application, the licensee stated that the amendment is
needed before PVNGS, Unit 1 could enter Mode 4, when the TSs require
that the Unit 1 SGs are operable in the restart from the October 2002
refueling outage, which begins September 28, 2002. The licensee stated
that the Westinghouse WCAP-15947 report, which is the basis for the
proposed amendment, could not be completed in time to avoid the exigent
circumstances. The licensee stated that entry into Mode 4 is currently
scheduled for October 26, 2002.
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 Section 50.91(1)(6) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 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
[[Page 62080]]
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 in its application, 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.
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) proposes to modify Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Technical Specifications
for Unit 1 to define the SG tube inspection scope. The PVNGS Unit 1
specific analysis takes into account the reinforcing effect the
tubesheet has on the external surface of an expanded SG tube. Tube-
bundle integrity will not be adversely affected by the
implementation of the revised tube inspection scope. SG tube burst
or collapse cannot occur within the confines of the tubesheet;
therefore, the tube burst and collapse criteria of NRC Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.121 (Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator
Tubes) are inherently met. Any degradation below the TEA [Tube
Engagement Area] length is shown by analyses and test results to be
acceptable, thereby precluding an event with consequences similar to
a postulated tube rupture event.
Tube burst is precluded for cracks within the tubesheet by the
constraint provided by the tubesheet. Thus, structural integrity is
maintained by the tubesheet constraint. However, a 360-degree
circumferential crack or many axially oriented cracks could permit
severing of the tube and tube pullout from the tubesheet under the
axial forces on the tube from primary to secondary pressure
differentials. Testing was performed to define the length of non-
degraded tubing that is sufficient to compensate for the axial
forces on the tube and thus prevent pullout. This proposed amendment
would encompass that length of non-degraded tubing for inspection.
In conclusion, incorporation of the revised inspection scope
into PVNGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications maintains existing design
limits and therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or 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.
Tube-bundle integrity is expected to be maintained during all
plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed tube inspection
scope. Use of this scope does not introduce a new mechanism that
would result in a different kind of accident from those previously
analyzed. Even with the limiting circumstances of a complete
circumferential separation of a tube occurring below the TEA length,
SG tube pullout is precluded and leakage is predicted to be
maintained within the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report limits
during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Upon implementation of the revised inspection scope, operation
with potential cracking below the Inspection Extent length in the
explansion region of the SG tubing meets the margin of safety as
defined by RG 1.121 and RG 1.83 (Inservice Inspection of Pressurized
Water Reactor Steam Generator Tubes) and the requirements of General
Design Criteria 14, 15, 31, and 32 of 10 CFR 50. Accordingly, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, APS [Arizona Public Service]
concludes that the proposed amendment presents 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 by close of business October 25,
2002, will be considered in making any final determination. The
licensee is currently scheduling the entry of Unit 1 into Mode 4 for
October 26, 2002, and requested in its application that NRC approve the
amendment by October 24, 2002. However, by allowing for comments
through October 25, 2002, the NRC will maximize the public comment
period for the proposed amendment, and should provide a minimum of a
21-day notice period. The actual date that this notice is published in
the Federal Register may allow for a slightly longer comment period.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 21-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 the shutdown of the
facility, or in preventing the facility from restarting from an outage,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 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. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By November 4, 2002, 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,\1\
[[Page 62081]]
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2),
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. Those provisions
are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those
provisions are as follows: ``In all other circumstances, such ruling
body or officer shall, in ruling on--
(1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing,
consider the following factors, among other things:
(i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding.
(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in
the proceeding on the petitioner's interest .
(2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a
contention if:
(i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
(ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in
the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of
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
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 September 26, 2002, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 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].
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September, 2002.
Jack Donohew,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-25146 Filed 10-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P