ML17300A453
| ML17300A453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17300A452 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609120283 | |
| Download: ML17300A453 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AYiENDY>ENT NO.
9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-41 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO.
STN 50-528
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated Ilay 14, 1986, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on behalf of itself, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison
- Company, El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New VIexico, Los Angeles Department of Vater and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees),
requested a change to the Technical Specifications for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (Appendix A to Faci)ity Operating License NPF-41).
The application requests that Specification 3/4.8. 1, "A.C. Sources",
be amended by changing both the routine surveillance testing and special testing of the emergency diesel generators to be consistent with regulatory guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1. 108 and Generic Letter 84-15.
2.0 DISCUSSION Technical Specification 3/4.8. 1 issued with the Palo Verde Unit 1 License specifies surveillance testing for the emergency diesel generators which is more frequent and, in some cases, more sever e than is required by manufacturer's recommendations and current regulatory guidance in Regulatory Guide 1. 108 and Generic Letter 84-15.
The licensees indicated that the types and frequency of tests specified for the Palo Verde Unit 1 diesel generators have caused problems with diesel generators at other facilities.
For Palo Verde Unit 2, which is identical in design to Palo Verde Unit 1, Technical Specification 3/4.8. 1 issued with the Unit 2 license is based on both the manufacturer's recommendations and current regulatory guidance.
By letter dated YIay 14, 1986, the licensees requested that the Palo Verde Unit 1 Specification 3/4.8.1 be revised to be the same as Specification 3/4.8. 1 for Unit 2 which was previously reviewed and approved by the staff.
pgR
~
3 86p9pp 86p9ipp
<<~PPPS28 PDR
0 I
~
~
3.0 EVALUATION The staff has evaluated the licensees'equest and finds that the proposed changes in Palo Verde Unit 1 Technical Specification 3/4.8. 1 are consistent with current regulatory guidance and that the changes will make Specification 3/4.8. 1 the same as Specification 3/4.8. 1 for Palo Verde Unit 2.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the requested changes are acceptable.
4.0 CONTACT VITH STATE OFFICIAL The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency has been advised of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration with regard to this request for change to the Technical Specifications.
No comments were received.
5.0 ENVIRONY(ENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This amendment involves changes in an inspection or surveillance requirement.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued proposed findings that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such findings. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec.
51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that
( 1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Me, therefore, conclude that the request is acceptable.
Dated:
September 3,
1986
0 e