ML17299A778

Forwards Summary & Anticipated Schedule for Remaining Chapter 14 Power Ascension Testing & Applicability of 851003 Loss of Power Event to Testing Requirements for Loss of Offsite Power,Per 851104 Meeting

ML17299A778
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/20/1985
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ANPP-34062-EEVB, TAC-56647, NUDOCS 8512020472
Download: ML17299A778 (12)

Text

'~~

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO>>N SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:8512020472 DOC ~ DATE: 85/11/20 NOTARIZED+

NO DOCKET FACIL',STN 50 528 Pa,lo Verde Nuclear Stations Unit li Arizona Publi 05000528'TN 50<<529 Pa.lo>> Verde Nuclear Stationr Unit 2i Arizona: Pub'li 05000529 AUTH'AME AUTHOR AFF>>IL>>IAT'ION VAN BRUNTEE ~ K,"

Arizona Nucilear Power; Project (formerly Arizona'. Public. Serv RECIP ~ NAME, REC'IPIENT>> AFFIL'IATION KNIGHTON<G~ >>>>>>l ~

Of f ice of>> Nucl ear Reactor Regul at i one Director (pre 851125)

SUBJECT:

Forwa'rds summary Chapter 10 power loss o;f power. ev o;f fsi'te poer E per DISTRIBUTION CDDE:

A001D TITLE; OR Submi ttell:

Gene SIZE:

L anticipated schedule-for, remaining a'scansion testing 8 appl,icability of 851003 enti tp. testing requirements for loss of'54104 meet i ng, COPIES RECEIVEO:LTR 1 'NCC ral>> Di stribution NOTES:Standardized plant.-

OL:: 12/31/8A Standardized plant>

05000528 05000529 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME/

PWR B

PD7 PD 01 INTERNAL': ACRS 09 EI.D/HDS3 NRR 8'0R P D 1 NRR PWR B

EB NRR/DSI/MKiTB OSRO/RRAB I

i 04 COPIES LA'TR 'ENCL>>

5 6

6 1

0 1

1 1

1 1

1, 1

1 1

RECIPIENT ID. CODE'/NAME>>

ADM/LFMB NRR BWR KB NRR PWR A

EB NRR/DHFT/TSCB NRR/DSRO DIR NRR/ORAS RGN5 COPIES LTTR KNCL 10 1

1 i

1 1

1 0

i, 1

EXTERNAL>>; 20X LPDR NSIC 03 05 1

1 1

1 1

KG8 G BRUSKK"E S NRC, PDR 02.

1~

1 1

TOTAL. NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 29 KNCL-26

Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX, ARIZONA85072-2034 November 20, 1985 ANPP-34062-EEVB/BJA Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Mr. George W. Knighton, Project Director PWR Project Directorate

$/7 Division of Pressurized Water Reactor Licensing B U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1 and 2

Docket Nos.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)/529 Unit 1 Power Ascension Testing File:

85-056-026; G.l.01.10

Reference:

Meeting Between E.

A. Licitra and M.

Ley of the NRC Staff. and J.

G. Haynes, R.

M. Butler, and T. F.

Quan of ANPP; dated November 4, 1985 in Bethesda, MD

Dear Mr. Knighton:

The attachments to this letter contain the following information which was requested by the NRC staff during the referenced meeting.

i) Summary and anticipated schedule for the remaining Chapter 14 Power Ascension Testing on PVNGS Unit 1.

(This schedule also includes other ma)or transient tests.)

ii)

Attachment 2 Applicability of the October 3, 1985, Loss of Power Event to the Testing Requirements for Loss of Offsite Power.

iii)

Attachment 3 Administrative Controls for Initial Concurrent Operation of Units 1 and 2.

The dates which are given in the testing schedule of Attachment 1

are projected dates for achievement of the various tests and milestones.

These dates are subject to change as the testing program develops.

Additionally, all required power ascension testing for PVNGS Unit 1 with the exception of the Natural Circulation Cooldown Test, is scheduled to be performed pri,or to initial criticality of PVNGS Unit 2.

Should the testing schedule change such that additional PVNGS Unit 1 tests extend beyond initial criticality of PVNGS Unit 2,

these tests will be reviewed with the NRC staff prior to initial criticality of PVNGS Unit 2.

85'pp

'Il gg>+020+7~

pg000528 I5DOCQ 0 pDR p

Mr. George W. Knighton Unit 1 Power Ascension Testing ANPP-34062 Page Two If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. W. F. Quinn of my staff.

Very truly yours, E.

E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Executive Vice President Project Director EEVB/BJA/dim Attachments cc:

E. A. Licitra R.

P.

Zimmerman M. Ley A. C. Gehr (all w/a)

ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING PVNGS UNIT 1 POWER ASCENSION TESTING TEST DESCRIPTION Control Systems Checkout at 80X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.4)

Load Rejection Test from 80X Power Initial Increase to 90X Power Initial Increase to 95X Power Initial Increase to 100X Power Fixed Incore Detector Test at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.20)

RCS and Secondary Chemistry and Radiochemistry Test at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.5)

Biological Shield Survey at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.10)

PROJECTED PERFORMANCE DATE December 1, 1985 December 1, 1985 December 2, 1985 December 3, 1985 December 3,

1985 December 3, 1985 December 3, 1985 December 3, 1985 Intercomparison of PPS,

CPC, and PMS Inputs at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.15)

Movable Incore Detector Test at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.20)

Steady State Core Performance Record at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.14)

COLSS/CPC Verification at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.18 and 14.2.12.5.21)

Control Systems Checkout at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.4)

December 3, 1985 December 3, 1985 December 5, 1985 December 5, 1985 December 6, 1985 Variable Tavg at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.2)

December 9, 1985 Unit Load Transient Test at 100%%d Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.3)

Reactor Power Cutback System Test at 100X Power Unit Load Rejection Test at 100% Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5. 7)

Turbine Trip Test at 100X Power (CESSAR 14.2.12.5.6)

December 12, 1985 December 15, 1985 December 17,'985 December 19, 1985

ATTACHMENT 2 LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER TESTING Section 14.2.12.5.9 of CESSAR describes the Loss of Offsite Power Test for System 80 plants.

This test is required by Regulatory Guide 1.68, Rev.

0 in order to demonstrate the acceptable response of the plant to a loss of Offsite Power Occurrence.

This test must be performed at a power level greater than lOX of rated power.

In lieu of performing a loss of offsite power simulation test in accordance with CESSAR Section 14.2.12.5.9, PVNGS Unit 1 will use the data obtained during the actual Loss of Offsite Power Event which occurred on October 3, 1985.

On October 3,

1985, PVNGS Unit 1 experienced an actual loss of offsite power while the reactor was being operated at 52X of rated power.

The reactor was automatically shutdown due to loss of the reactor coolant pumps and the plant was maintained in Hot Standby on emergency power sources for approximately 25 minutes at which time offsite power was restored.

Vital auxiliaries were restored within the following 15

minutes, and RCS forced circulation was restored approximately 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after initiation of the event.

The results of the actual loss of offsite power event give a

much better indication of the plant's ability to perform acceptably during a

Loss of Offsite Power than the results that could be obtained during a

test simulation.

Additionally, even though the 30 minute time duration which is specified in CESSAR 14.2.12.5.9 was not met during the event, the functional equivalent of this commitment has been met since the plant was fully stabilized and verified to be in natural circulation prior to the restoration of offsite power.

The performance of a specific Loss of Offsite Power Test is not justified in this case because the test would impose an additional severe transient on the plant, a significant challenge to plant safety

systems, and the test would not result in any information which has not been previously collected.

It should be noted that PVNGS Units 2 and 3 will perform Loss of Offsite Power Tests during the power ascension testing phases in accordance with CESSAR 14.2.12.5.9.

ATTACHMENT 3 OPERATION OF UNITS 1 AND 2 ANPP will implement the following measures during the performance of NRC required power ascension testing on PVNGS Unit 2 to assure the opportunity for management and staff attention to PVNGS Units 1 and 2.

i)

PVNGS Unit 2 activities will progress only when adequate resources are available to assure that these activities are conducted properly.

ii)

Ascending mode changes (e.g.,

Mode 2 to Mode 1) will not occur unless the other unit (either Unit 1 or Unit

2) is in a

stable operating condition.

EXHIBIT G 2

?

'/g//'$)?'b, Earl McCertneylRepublic Lyn M?cKay'heads,a group, from the Coalition for-:

.headquarters.

McKay.on Friday announced plans Responsible Energy Education,'in:-front'of: APS...':to nionitor problems at the Palo. Verde.plant:

Group deciies Palo Verde's record, urges delay;of':fuel'loading it Unit 2 By JOHN STAGGS

.;", The coigition based its'other charges on previous problems and NRC reports about Unit.l.

-.Th'e Coalition '.for ResPonsible Energy'ducation

.. Dan Canady, spokesman for,pa]o'.Viide,,said that

.mid Fr1day it 1s-P]arming.'a numb r; of aetio~ to NRC Commi%ioner L do Z.ch irispe'ct.d;Unit 2.this combat'what;itcalls.poor qualitycontro];trainingand week and indicated that ~'management is, on top-o safety conditions at the Palo. Verde Nuclear Generating th'n s

'l>>

'He'soneofthefivetopmenintheNRC.Onadaily The coalition-began by,.urging.the

= U.S. Nuc]ear.

basis,,we'r'e in"contact with the NRC inspectors" at the' g ]at. V Commmion t; delay fuel loading at Unit 2 p]ant",Ce,ady Mld.

fth P "~, -

';=

~

Lyn McKay, coalition president, also arinounced My on S tt int mention ~r'dinat r fot the p]am to mon];r problems at the p]ynt, investig&t..-.

,coalition, said=

permission for fuel. loading and'orker, a))egations and fi]e. forma]

Petitions on low-power operation ofUnit 2 should be withheld until

prob]ems withthe NRC the. NRC "~ ~ure the Pubuc.tl t Anmna Public.."'.nt.ndingit Q dÃficulttoobt ina coherentpicture

Service-'Company is comPetent to oPerate Unit 1 of "what is going on" at palo Verde, she.said the coalition willtry to closely monitor and publicize plant'."

His urginj came during a.demonstration by'the TemPe-based grouP 'at APS headquarters, 411 N;;, lnaddition,McKaysaid thegroupwi))asktelevision

-. 'and radio station's for "equal time" to an'swer a recent

. Claiming. faulty. quality assurance,'raining,

'equip- - $60,000 APS'ad'campaign, featuring former astronaut

.:ment. testing, security and fire safety at:.Unit 1, Scott WallySchirra, that promoted the plant.

asked,."1f APS doesn't have,a handle. on'nit,1, ho+i

~ Barbara Bush, the coalitiori's'executive director, said can it'be trusted to operate Unit2?"

".the demonstration was planried for Friday because that.

Scott was referring, in. part'to a recent'.NRC re'port was the date Palo Verde officials had targeted for fuel.

citing officials for failure to follow fire-safety proce-loadingat'.Unit 2.

-dures at Palo;Verde, whicH is located 50 mi]es'west of 'owever, Canady denied that a specific date had

. downtown Phoenix.

-. been set.

"ln addition",the federa]'agency criticized?the p]antrs-We'e always been referencing fuel loading for. Unit management for'))owing 'a-worker to take safety-re-,

2 forthe last quarter ofthe year," he said.

lated:measurements.

in the reactor core whi]e.working Later, another Palo Verde spokesman amended for 20 continuous hourL i

Unit 2, F6.

Saturday, November 2, 1985

~ The Arizona Republic

'. THE'ARIZONA 4~ gPg+$

REPUBLIC',

'"Ch"-:

<3, H,

~ <<

S r

'),!'+

))<<r

~ 4 Unit 2 Contiri'ued fromFl )

~ 4

-Canady's,statement, saying that

'."about. a year..ago,.we. told..the NRC".that fuel loading could take place sometime in November but.

that a firmdate never was set... -.,

However; an NRC report from a,

'Sept. 20 meeting with Palo Verde:

officials - addressed

to Ed,Van-

Brurit, APS'ice president For',

nuclear production, gives. the-target loading date as Nov. 1, The final report:is dated,Qct; 9'and confirms

=

the understanding of'the. Nov. 1 Greg Cook,,an NRC spokesman

. in Walnut-Creek, Calif;; said that-

"Nov'ember:.1. is. not the official:

'.'docketed'ate" but. wai an. esti-mate;.!'Now,we'ie looking at. the'.

,hte part of-November" for low-'"

power licensing and fuel loading

'. Cook said...

. Canady later. admitted that. Palo Verde" officials had 'advised'he,

. NRC that-their estimated date for.'.

- fuel Ioadingwas Nov.I.

. "Ifevery'Oiing Ead'one exacHyright,'",.

fuel" loading 'ould have'egun Friday, Pe said.,

t

~

RP~V Krtt&ljfffe C2

. MT/Sunday, December 15, 1985 The Mesa Tribune ROGER S. KINTZEL Publisher MAXJENNiNGS Exccutivo Editor

- SANDYSCHWARTZ Managing Editor BDB scHus?ER Editorial pago Editor

~

t 8

n 7

t ti ii

'., 'ROGER Si DENNiS PETER P

MA f882) 898.8545 MAXJENNINGS EXECVTiVEEDITOR I20 WosIFIrst Aveisve PMIOrliceeoir I547 Msss Aruons 8520 I

'., LETTER FROM THE ED1TOR..'-.'.:. ~,.

3piirimiZIig-.i)f.lh'Oalka EG.W%$ tIQ:lUI1SUll'It!

CZlltICBIitt g

asa Grande school board members deserve praise for resisting pressure from a group

. demanding that the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel

-ToKilla iifockingbirdbe banned from the eighth grade reading list.

Those vzho would ban books and teaching

.materials from classrooms are on the march in virtuallyevery state. One anti-censorship group cites a 37 percent increase in censorship activity from 1984 to 1985. Most of the demands have come from right-wing'groups opposing the teaching of evolution and human sexuality.

. In Casa

Grande, the demand came from a different quarter the local chapter of the

'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after a girlcomplained that some characters'se of derogatory terms in reference to blacks made her "uncomfortable."

Written in 1960 by Harper Lee, the novel is a powerful condemnation of racism.

Casa Grande isn't the only place Lee's book has come under fire. Parents of junior high school students in Missouri recently urged removal of the book because it "-explores bigotry and prejudice." The school board stood firmand kept the book in the school library.

In Kansas, a parent demanded the book be Ea removed from a required-reading list because it is "offensive to blacks." The school board voted unanimously to keep iton the list.

Other attempts to ban books or teaching materials from schools have been more successful.

Last year the Lake Havasu City School Board banned Robert Cormier's The Chocolate li'ars because it"fosters disrespect in the eius room."

I t lt n

I tn

~

Gutsrde the COutf01 TGOIIL 0 Oct.3-'DGUIer unscheduled shutdown cuused

~-.-

by Iuierzupuou in delivery ofelectricity fo thQhnt from the switch yard.

Oct. 7 An accident while wtczkfrlg pj,the electronicswitchirrgsystem TccrctatedtheOci.3iypu of problem 0 Oci. 24 While running at 81 percent pulfer, t Unit I shut itself down during 8 load reductio pJGst because of an erroueous Iuw water level signal Jzum.'.

reaction has been stopped because of-accidents and malfunctions. Eight times, there was =

trouble.

Eight times... eight times...

Intellectually,Iknow UlePalo Verde nuclear plant mustbusafG.ButsomeUIIug'ssUUUIere,eaUugaway

=

at my guts. There's no rational explauauon forIL hiy unessiucss no doubt is simUar iu that of teus of.>>

thousands of other Arizona residents.

)=- < 5

~;.;-:-..--"

i Acoldunalysisofthefactsiudicatespaloverdeis,.IXGIX>>JenDI+gs:."

'ueuflhcsteamgeuerators.~,z.,,<

s;.4~- - -g indeed, Safe.B<<WhOueedxaCOldanalySIS?hfaybean CauruGIII,, -, -,

DGC. 4 A faulty COntral rOd breaker XWIICh; emotional one has Us merits, too.

allowed rods Usdropdowuinto thecoreaccidep4lly,',>>"

~

Itwuslust Jan.?whencontroltudsweregradually

.;.,~,

Sh<<ungdownthesystent-.

~'.>> ~~~,-.-.'.,!,

lilted Lu begin the controlled nuclear reaction, the

• 0 Dec.ll-Theuult,whichhudb8eaoperattugat first in Arizona. Last Tuesday, at 5:43 pm. ~ Palo their first year of operation, it's uot uncommon to peak power, was, shut down because Gf.a. leak.

Verde was kicked upto100 percent output,producing have 100 unplanned trips (shutdowns).

discovered in condenser tubes.

1,270megawattsofpowcnenoughtotakecareofUIe

'That'stheofficfalliuc.Whafelse?ThiugsareswelL.'

Dec.

13.Whileoperating just abuvv zfzto needs of amslormetropoIituu area.

~

'-'hy this feeling in the my gut?.."

'ower, 8 minor chemistry imbalance which showed

-; I

'That triumphant moment of last Tuesday lasted

=

=

I-'

'toomuchamonialuthewaterrequiredtheplanlgbe culy 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />. A leak was discovered in a condenser Here's the 1985 chronology of the shutdowns:

. ',.Shut down again,,

tube which tuIIIs the steam back Into wuter, aud UIe

. 0 Jan. 7 The first nuclear Tezcuon begins 8ud

~ '- Liiuethings, all, I guess. How can I tell? Howcan'; I Unit I wascutbackiozero Thenuclexr Teacuon was first tests get under way.

• t '

l'

":you? Basicauy, we take the compauy's word forIt;. ~.

not halted, but the producuon wxs stopped.

~ 0 June 14 An automatic shutdown occurred, Urat none Gf these problems was aU that serious. Itnd..-:

.'tthesumeulncworkwasuuderwaytorepairihis when an electricalcircuitbreakeropenedaudsh<<wehop8theNuclearRegulatoryCcmmIsslonIxd9bg latestprcblem,workerswcreioadingfuelintoUuitz, GHaccndensatepump.

",-,. Iislob.

vrhich soGII willbegin the same kind of shakedown '-

', B<<therearedcslgnproblemsatPaloVerde.There

=~. i IhatUuit 1hashadforthelastycar.,

~

0 July l-Themaiufeedwaterpumpsupplytug

- bave been uad will continue to be equipmbt ~.,"-I IfYou listen Io Arizona Public Service, operator of water to generators malfuncuoned. ~

~ =:...

-. problems. There have been 2nd wiU conunue tope -."~

Arizona's first 2nd only nuclear power facility, the 0 July 11 The reactor was shut down when 8 human errors at Palo Verde. ',

shakedown of Unit 1 Is right oli target. It was one-galionperminulewaterleakwasdetecteLThe

-The Idea is to detect the problems aud fix,them supposed to take 50 weeks io get the plsat up 18100 cause was u<<d<<elmiued at that Ume.

before they become catastrophic.

~

=

~ r $>> '.,;

percentproducuou,audihat'sahuostexacuywhatii 0 July 17 Another shutdown triggered by 8, That willbedoue.lhope.l pray.Butsull,Iguzss took.

signal from a faully circuit board which indicated I'm like 8 I<<of people who Cuuady, jhc,hp Problems were expected and they have been dealt troubIe in the core protector calculator system.

spokesman, talks io.

t..=:~,:- d with successfully. Or so we'vc been toIIL

~

0 July 23 A shutdown was ordered when the t-.'I think unfortunately people'8 perception of ke.

ApS spokesmuu Dan Causdy says what he ls one.gallorr-per minute leakage began agaht A

plantlslt'snotreUxble, hesays.'Theydou'Zreally supposed to ssy, and that is that the industrY chargiugpumpsealwastheprobieIIt understand the process weVe been gohlg thtougb Qjis average forstxrtupofnewnucfeurplantstsl51820 0 Sept.

12 During 8 load relecuon test to. year.',i

..-.,,'....I sr P,

unpixuucd shutdowns in the first year. That makes simulate what would happen If the electricity. -

You'e right, Dart We don't uuderztaud It, agd 58 Palo Verde look goaL productionsuddeulyhaduoplacetogo,iheplz<<was

- don',t trustlt Aud, Cauzdy reminds us, Coal fired power plsuts shut down because of an tucorrect 'csuug

.'o Ulrovgh the same type of systems checkout

.procedure.

hfxx Jeaafvgx fs exewrhw cdllor o! The leaf~

process, und coal fired plants I'm aware of during 0 Sept.

16 A scheduled shutdown to

~ Tribune.

GARY MARKSTEIN EDIToRlALGARTooNIST HERE TO WRITE Patio Vm:ze16%: iEmkdo~.'Ojmiiii'jjIUIevii;.

ight timesiuurelaztyear,somethinghasgone

~ '.i demonstrate ability to shut down the reactorulfpm,

-'J wrong at Palo Verde. Eight times, the uucIear

EXHIBIT G - 4 V

-~ u

~ 1.

~ Q~~@7+~ ~~d&~~~

6

.SE'6,:.'

~ASS'"'::.

VGA Q SSFVKC8 WINTERSBURG (AP) The

'inishing Unit1 testing byyear's end

'Also Wednesday, APS proposed to

~ latest shutdown of Palo Verde,'ecause APS accountants already

'he Arizona Corporation Commis-Nuclear Generating Station's Unit 1'-'", have

. taken advantage': of all sion two plans on how to billits elec-reactor means the plant will not'.'llowable deddctions,'said APS'riccustomersfortheutility'sshare enter commercial service this:year "spokesmanBradParker.

of the costs of building the Unit 2.

as operators had planned, a plant Tom Mumaw, chief hearing of-reactor.,"

spokesmansays..'..ficer for the'utility-regulating APS said it needs approximately "There's no way we can finish the

""Arizona Corpration Commission,

$193.9 million in a'dditional annual

'esting program by the end of the said documents filed by Palo Verde revenue when Unit 2 begins com-year," Dan Canady of the Arizona

. officials had promised to get Unit 1 mercialoperationsinmid-1986.

Nuclear Power Project, the plant's

.intoservicebyyear'send. 'he first APS plan calls for a operator, said Wednesday. "We'e g

."That's what they'e always told gradual phase-in of an 19.6 percent got too much work left, and not

, us,", Muma'w added.."We'e, said rate increase over three years, star-

.enough time between now and Dec.

that's what's reasonable."

Mumaw

."ting in 1987 21 in which to do it.". -~he~.-t.:=.e."~.""i ~,".'>.';h, said March 1"is'the outer envelope. '

-.The. other option 'provides for, a t

,Wednesday

night, technician's Beyond that date, we begin imposing 19.36 percent rate increase when the restarted the Unit 1 reactor, which

'conomic penalties.".

• ,unit goes into commercial opera-

'hut itself down Monday night after

~y',.'~t";Because the plant cannot generate

..";.:tions.

detecting a low water level, in a;"'~ revenues fo'r APS until, a March 27,:~p."Loading of the Unit 2 reactor with steam generator, Canadysaid.;;;e;p-;,-rate hearing, there 'are even some

.'" nuclear fuel was completed earlier

7."It currently is at 25 percent, (of; <',"financial disincentives,to putting the ','" this week..i".K',"de';- ",

generating capacity) and CBmb-

~~>'plant into the rate base between now..",.tAPS said the phase-in plan would

".ing,'".-Canady said today. $9%le

~~dg;and then,'-Mumawsaid.

'~~ia "-. ',~pgincrease the

.a'verage ".-residential i

.there may be one or two pauses at ".""";."",They can't 'get money out and ';t.customer's monthly billfrom g2.33.

'ertain powerplateaus,'-yre're look-","@they willincur op'crating expenses',",'~'-n 1985 to g7.42 in 1987;492.75 in 1988';

tng at hetng

'up to full phtrer prih,eVheaafd.'!Oncethephrecertifiedfor.-,,an'd$

9850inl989 Thatdoeen'tconnt j bably over this weekend.",.".~'~~;f.,".'d" ~ commercial operation, they lose cer-'--.:a request pending w'ith the ACC for.

~ '."'Palo Verde,'located in the desert')-"tain 'accounting;advantages'.they):an.8.6 pe'rcent increase that would k m0es w'est of downtown Pho'enix,'w" now~have".,<It <all -involves <<funny ~.-,'add $7.08 to the"average 1985 mon-~

'.is owned by'utilities in'Arizona,'K"- moneyonthebooksanyway,'butit's t

thlybilltopayforUnit1,'APSsaid.".:,,

"California,nNewMexicoandTexas. '"""a reahty thaVprovides a cerfairi"'-'","..The one-step "traditional plan' Arizona Public Service Co., 29.1 disincentive,,.

='-= 'would increase the average monthly, percent owner of the plant, willnot "We were assured by APS that the,residential billfrom $82.33 in 1985 to

.lose any tax advantages by 'not plantwouldbeupandoperatingby

<$98.27whenUnit2beginscommer-now, so we never thought this would htcial operations,'sCheduled for mid-'

~

'."~ become'an issue," Mumaw added.

',"-'1986,'APS said.

~

~

~

~

PeIIO VeII'de ~IIII mice Je~

1 poweI 'deedIIne':",:,

By JQHN STAGGS. 8 7:

b parker said, "ft's a lose. lose propositien" for APS, A decision operational oi financial standpoint that's rnsgio.aboutiten.

ra-s -ry-Operators of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station On the one hand, "Il'ou go commercial before the 27th, Because the plant cannot generate revenu'es for APS until say their self-imposed Jan.

1. deadline for commercial 'ou can't put it in the rate base" because the rate base iviil the March 27 rate hearing, there are even some financial operation ofUnit,1 willbemissed.;,

- not have been decided, and Palo Verde's power will be more

- disincentives to putting the plant into the rate base'betiveen.

Despite that, a plant spokesman said, "EVe're extremely' expensive than APS coal-generated power, he said. '~.;. now and the'n, said Tom Mumaw, chiefhearingofficer for the pleased with its operation.".<

But, "the longer you put it.off, the more'you impact,the =. commission..'.;

But Arizona Public Service Co.-'spokesman Brad. Parker

~ ($2.86 billion) cost ceiling (ofUnitI),"Parker said.

..."They can't get money'out, and'they will incur oper'sting said a March 1 deadline imposed by the state Corporation The commission has said,that money spent for Unit,-l.

expenses,"

he said. "Once they are certified for commeicial Commission "has put APS between a rock and a hard place."

'beyond the

cost, cap,'will be considered "imprudent

-'operation, they lose certain accounting advantages theyPow

'The. portion of a $78.2 million rate increase specifically expenditure" that. willnot be allowed in the rate base.

~

.= -have. It all involves funny money on the books anyway,'ut intended for Unit 1 won't be heard until March 27, and,...,

As for the.APS deadline, "I don't see anything from an Palo Verde,fag 'r s-6

-g

.6 C

Q O

ch "o

t4 O "y-CP g ~

CP CP a

o0 C5 Cg @,=g ~ Cg.g Wc og~og cC ~

cnO OOw

g. cp cg cn CP cn M go~

CP0 cs an cg co

~

O W )

.w cn et~St o

o W-".. g 0 0

. - C5eO CS cp ~ g cp 0 g g cg c5 S5 cn O~g cp ~

cg O g~ g. cl cp cp CP C5 g

~

s gang~

cc g ~O~

.g CP ~

cp Cgm cn Cn ~

CNP C5 CP CP CP 0 0 rn 0 cn 0 n Q 0 CP >

C5 cn 0 0 Cg ~oQ OE cn CP O Q,+

0, cd&

g cn cg C5 Cy280

<<P CP~

cn g

crs Cg cn ~

.g o

~ face cn r g g Cg CP O cp

'0 O CP Cfb C5 CP

~sv 0 CP O c5 aO 0 Q cn O0~

gBc O

a cn O O gsn W,

< )~ 'a '.~

gtn sn g.~ W Op.cn O cp 0 0~

g cp~,

Q,g cs

.~a~o

~sa40 gg CP cgOCP CP 0= W.g g

cr nn Mgg

~s Cg a g 7

50 Mn

. g GP~

cs g

cg C5 B ~

C5 O,nn CnM~

~ ~ OW4+=CCOC5g, 9 ~

Cg g eP cn O 0 og cn gnc GP g-a

's C5 cn cp oà C5- 0 -S'$ y'- ~ C5'Zno GP Cn O CP:~eg ~~~ ~

Cae g,cn, ~Q cg

~

0 cs c,~g CP CP + g C 0 CPrOS7 g Cg Q Q Cg cg C5 ~ W'elg '

~ Q

+g cn ighg r B <g~

Csgy ~

g. C 0

~ 5"~"~~.- '

g. Ct~.K Cf

~

c5 cgW ~

cn M cg cnMm, 2 cg cn

Power 8: Light Co. fr ing its'.

plant into service quic The problems that arose at Palo Verde also seemed more signiTicant.

Palo. Verde officials were criti-.. g cized by the NRC for the "infor-i mal" manner in which they tried to solve difficulties with a misplaced radiation monitoring system de-signed for use during a

severe emergency at the plant.

And Harold Denton, chief of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, criticized the project=

for what he said was a "significant; failure" of'a system.designed:to-reduce pressure

'in the, reactor cooling system. after the plant is'hut down.

Only Fermi 2 has raised more eyebrows:at NRC hea'dquarters in'ethesda, Md., during recent test-ing.

aA'aj eFS Testmcj Unit 1's problems few but serious P/ctrees uncmev'gal@a les Yilrtg Plant Licensee

'Size/design Initial criticality operation-

.service after it shut doivn on numerous occasions," he said.

The plant missed its end-of-the year deadline.

The performance of a nuclear plant during testing is not a reliable

. indicator of how well itwillperform later, an 'analysis of NRC records shortest Some plants like Duke Power Co.'s McGuire 2, which have had'-the worst test records, have operated With extremely high effi-ciency later.

Althoughit suffered far fewer, equipment malfunctions.during-testing than Waterford, WolfCreek and Limerick, the problems that did arise at Palo Verde proved time-consuming, according to a,

computer analysis of NRC reports provided to The Gazette by the Washington, D.C;based Nuclear Information Resource Service.

-= Palo Verde suffered 14 equip-ment "trips" or malfunctions while undergoing-testing, according to documents filed iviththe NRC.

=,, Aiadiation.mmplYig system had "to:be'relocated'Hundreds of. bolts By VictorDricks..p-/

T nix Gazette The alo Verde uc ear Gener-.

ating Station may have a

good construction record, but its testing~

program for Unit I has been nothing to crow about.

Although Palo Verde I has had fewer problems than three other plants, the problems that did arise'eemed more'erious and took; longer to solve.

As a result, itwilltake longer for Palo Verde I to get into commercial operation than scheduled. and longer than it took several other.

plants undergoing testing at the same time, a survey by The Phoe-nix Gazette shows.

Diablo Canyon 2.in California-willhave taken seven inonths to get.

into commercial. service ifit makes its March deadline.

Ittook Waterford 3'in Louisiana-six months and the, Wolf..Creek.='=

nuclear.',plant.in Kansas"- 3 A:-

Wolf Creek Kansas Gas (Kansas) 8 Electric Sept. 3 May 22 t'""';-Vfat'erford'ill:->>'::.."Louisicin'a.:Power,-'.-'="-'-.'"'

"":",.:-.,"='-,-."'."";"".:,'.,i.-";-=-" "::=,-'.='-"-'-'"-'~" -'-'--'-"-he h.) d 1 h.

El 1055/Bwr l.imerick I Philadelphia Dec. 22, 1984 February NRC officials in Chicago notified utility executives in late-December about concerns that significant safety problems might develop if changes were not made in plant" management and operator trammg.:

- The $3.765 billion Fermi 2 reac-tor has been in a "cold shutdown" since Oct.-9 because. of problems

= that may-have affected the ability'f diesel generators'to provide the plant'with emergency power, and-glitches'affecting a reactor coolant' pump,;Frank-'Agosti,".Detroit Edi-;

a'on.'s -inan'agei'.of.-.nucleart operations; said. '..;.:.'

,- iNRC officials also are investigat-.

-.:ing an inciderit.that occurred July 2 in which roperators'improperly re-'oved control rods that mo'derate

'nucleai;,reactions within the Fermi

. plant.This.'initiated a.condition-

'a1led

prematu're '"criticalityr" Agostisald: -:-<<..-,>>-.-.

Diablo Canyon II Pacific Gas 1190/Pwr Aug. 1 March (California) 8 Electric

~",,'Palo'Ys'rcfe,.l..';-",<<'~'rizoncr'ublica

":l'lre270"I~":'.'",",.',.",,j"-"."::>,.':-.

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic tndustrioi Forum, Nuclear information Resource Service and individual utilitics.

."PWR 'ressurized water reactor xBWR= Boiling water reactor I

ThePhoedj'x.Gazcti>."': on. Pipe suppor(s had to be, tight-;

l~~ge~ than most he said.- -

. -=

ened, Project officials-+ecam meshed in'a debate"@ith-federal But he said the Proof of the

=regulators about the adequacy of a-t ting Program for Unit I will be back-up pressurizer syst.m, and'in the Pudding"

'he efficiency leaks in the plant's cooling systems with which it operates after ente'r-bedeviled operators ing commercial service.

',On twooc'casions pio ems ep Many of the problems that viue'plant out'of service'oi'periods.

delayed testing had origins stem-

-'longer.than 30 days.

~i--'ming from design and construction-

'Vriteiford 3 suffere'd "a" 6p-day'f the plant, Van Bruntsaid..

outage because of strange-vibra-

"We didn't do too well in our tions'detected.initsturbinegenerait

.ability to get the plant back into tors. But it didn't stop Mississippi';

SeeoTeshng F-6

~ j>

0~ evso<<u So on' e

<<V'

'In contrast,""it-"will..h'aver taken. -

palo-Verde.-eight months-----

.f.=.-

.- AtPaloVerde,EdVanBrunt Jr, projectopiciats get ther<<eacto'r into rPQlp Verde.... t" executive=vice president of the Arizona Nuclear Power

Project, th

'th y -

fee'tf')QQ.. -'aid he has been extremely pleased with. overall testing performace Three other plants in the testing First of trio artides despite problems.

pipeline Shoreham, on Long "On a first-of-a-kind design like

Island, N.Y.; Detroit's. Fermi 2

start-up.-that prevented 'esting Palo Verde things take longer. We reactor and the Limerick I plant in

'progress.

expect start;up for units 2 and 3 to Pennsylvania will take longer.

Testing at Fermi 2 has been so be much shorter," he said, noting than Palo Verde. ': '-

plagued with problems that U.S.

that project officials anticipated a But that's only because Shore-Nuclear Regulatory Commission of 5p-week testing program following ham and Limerick became en- 'icials have threatened to withhoM fuelloadingin early January 1985..

meshed in legal battles after afull-powerlicense..

"We figured it would take us'