ML17300A703
| ML17300A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1987 |
| From: | Marlone Davis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.108, RTR-REGGD-1.108 NUDOCS 8703230146 | |
| Download: ML17300A703 (15) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-530 MAR 1,6 ]gg 0
Mr. E. E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President Arizona Nuclear Power Project Post Office Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034
Dear Mr. Van Brunt:
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (FSAR)
CHAPTERS 1, 8, AND 9
REFERENCE:
ANPP Letter, J.G.
Haynes to G.W. Knighton, ANPP 39456 - JGH/JKR/98.05, dated December 19, 1986 II The staff has completed its review of your submittal of December 19, 1986, which proposed changes to Chapters 1, 8, and 9 of the Palo Verde FSAR.
The proposed changes include
( 1) a modification which changes the source of cooling water to the diesel generator governor oil cooler from the spray pond water system to the diesel generator jacket cooling water system; (2) changes to the unit load rejection test to include a simultaneous test of the fast bus transfer; (3) taking an exception to Reg Guide 1. 108; and (4) changes to the PVNGS transmission network.
The details of the staff's evaluation are presented in Enclosure 1.
The results of our review indicate that the proposed changes will be acceptable upon receipt of documentation correcting the deficient items identified in Section 2, 4, and 5 of Enclosure l.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please let me know.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page PD7 P
3//y/87 3
87 870323DOGV, 0500 8
b MOSOG pgp gD PD f
i Michael J. Davis, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.
7 Division of PWR Licensing-B B
ghton
// /87 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket FileQ NRC PDR LPDR PRC System PD7 Reading F. Miraglia OGC-Attorney E. Jordan B. Grimes J. Partlow N. Thompson EALicitra M. Davis J.
Lee ACRS (10)
E. Tomlinson C. Miller
~ g I
P e
4 I II 4
4 I
4 I
tkk 4
kt 4
n 4
Hr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Arizona Nuclear Power Proiect Palo Verde, CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell E Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq. Assistant Council James A. Boeletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, Ca l iforni a 91770 Mr. Hark Ginsberg Energy Director Office of Economic Planning and Development 1700 West Washington - 5th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Yir. Wayne Shirley Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Mr. Roy Zimmerman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 239, Arlington, Arizona 05322 Ms. Patricia Lee Kourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Regional Administrator, Region V
U. S. Nuc'tear Regulatory Commission 1450 Haria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.
Winston 5 Strawn Suite 500 2550 H Street, NW Washington, DC F0037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accour tability Proiect of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Mr. Ron Rayner P.
O.
Box 1509
- Goodyear, AZ 85338 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 1310
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814
4
ENCLOSURE 1
EVALUATION OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO PALO VERDE FSAR CHAPTER 1, 8 AND 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY
The applicant, Arizona Public Service
- Company, submitted several proposed changes to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit 3 FSAR in a letter, ANPP-89456-JGH-JKR-98.05, dated December 19, 1986 (Reference 1).
These changes involve (1) a 'modification which changes the source of cooling water to the diesel generator governor oil cooler from the spray pond water system to the diesel generator jacket cooling water system; (2) changes to the unit load rejection test to include a simul-taneous test of the fast bus transfer; (3) taking an exception to Regu-latory Guide (RG)
- 1. 108; and (4) changes to the PVNGS transmission network.
The results of our review of these changes are presented in the following sections.
2.0 FSAR CHANGE 1:
DIESEL GENERATOR GOVERNOR OIL COOLER COOLING WATER SOURCE Evaluation Our review of the information contained in the applicant's submittal (Reference
FSAR Figure 9.5-10 and FSAR Section 1.8 indicated that while this proposed change of cooling water source to the governor oil cooler from the ESPS to the jacket water cooling system may cause the governor oil temperature to be higher, this higher oil temperature will not adversely affect the operation of the governor.
However, our review did show that discrepancies in incorporation of this revised information into the FSAR exist.
Specifically, FSAR Figure 9.5-9 (Sheet 4) does not show the same change that is described in the revised text of Section 9.5.5.2.
Also the change has not been made on FSAR Figures 9.5.9 (Sheets 1 and 3), 9.5-10 or in the response to RG 1. 108 (Coolino Water System) on Pages 1.8-63 and 1.8-64.
Conclusion This proposed FSAR change is acceptable conditioned on the applicant's action to clarify and coordinate the change such that the FSAR text des-cribes and the FSAR figures show the same configuration for the Diesel Generator Governor Oil Cooler Cooling Water Supply.
I 3.0 FSAR CHANGE 2:
CHANGES TO UNIT LOAD REJECTION TEST Evaluation Our review of the information submitted by the applicant in Reference 1
proposing to add new PVNGS FSAR Section 1.9.2.4(-) against PVNGS FSAR Section 14.2.12, and CESSAR Section 14.2.12.5.7 indicated that the appli-cant's submittal was not sufficiently detailed for the staff to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed changes to the Unit Load Rejection Test for Unit'3.
By telecon, the applicant was advised that the staff needed additional information that would identify the specific breakers tripped to initiate the test, plant systems and parameters monitored, and accept-able parameter ranges for the monitored parameters that were used as accep-tance criteria.
Also the applicant was asked to describe how the proposed alternate test method for Unit 3 would differ from the previous test, including how it would initiate and test the fast bus transfer.
The applicant responded by informally sending additional information includ-ing brief descriptions of the proposed alternate test, the fast bus trans-fer and a copy of the previous unit load rejection test procedure.
On the basis of this additional information together with that contained in Reference 1, we completed our evaluation of the proposed changes.
Conclusion The additional information provided by the applicant clarified the purpose and method of performing, the test of the unit load rejection capability and the fast bus transfer.
On this basis, we believe that the proposed change will not materially change the purpose or result of the test in such a way as to lessen confidence in the ability of the plant systems to per-form their safety functions, does not constitute an unreviewed safety con-
- cern, and is acceptable.
4.0 FSAR CHANGE 3:
EXCEPTION TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.108 Evaluation Our review of the information contained in the applicant's submittal (Reference
and Generic Letter 84-15 finds that the proposed change involves inserting a
response to Position C.2.d of the guide which specifies changes to the diesel generator test schedule from that recommended by the regulatory guide.
This proposed test schedule is the same as that given in Table 4.8-1 of the Generic Letter (GL) 84-15 recommendations.
- However, no infor-ma'tion is presented regarding whether or not the applicant has set relia-bility goals for the diesel generators and has a program for maintaining
the reliability at those values as was recoranended in Enclosure 3 to GL 84-15.
An example of such goals and a program was "given in the Attach-ment to Enclosure 3 of GL 84-15.
Recommended sample additions to plant technical specifications are also included in Appendix A to the Attachment to Enclosure 3 of the generic letter.
Conclusion The proposed exception to RG 1. 108 is acceptable provided the applicant states that he has reliability goals for his diesel generators and has a program for maintaining the reliability of the diesel generators at those values similar to that outlined here.
5.0 FSAR CHANGE 4:
CHANGES TO PVNGS TRANSMISSION NETWORK Evaluation Our review of the information submitted by the applicant in Reference 1
against the present version of FSAR Sections
- 8. 1 and 8.2 indicated that these proposed changes update the FSAR with regard to changes in the EHY
- grid, PVNGS switchyard, onsite power distribution system and the offsite power system stability studies.
This review raised these concerns:
(a)
Insert "A" of Reference 1 includes no description of interconnections with the systems of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and of Utah Power and
Light Company but FSAR Figure 8.1 (Sheets 1 and 2.)
show such intercon-nections.
The FSAR text and drawings should be corrected to make both represent the actual configuration:
(b)
Page 8.2-1 of Reference 1 refers to four transmission lines in Sections 8.2. 1 and 8.2. 1. 1, however, five such lines are shown in the drawings.
The fifth line is shown as the PVNGS - North Gila line.
The text or drawings should be corrected to show the actual configurations:
(c)
Page 8.2-8, Section 8.2.2 of Reference 1
discusses grid outage rates with regard to 'grid availability.
The rates presented,
- however, are only those for faults.
Grid availability is in-fluenced by all outages including those due to causes other than faults.
Your discussion should be modified to include the effect on grid availa-bility of outages due to causes other than faults such as unscheduled outages for equipment or transmission line repair, and scheduled outages for routine maintenance and testing of transmission lines and equipment.
Revised FSAR Appendix 8B presents grid stability analyses for three cases of losses or faults on the changed EHV grid.
Our review of these analy-tical results indicates that they support the applicant's statement that the 525KV EHV grid is stable for the conditions and configurations assumed in the analyses.
Conclusion Our review of FSAR change 4 as evaluated above indicates this change package is acceptable with the exception of the items identified in
l evaluations 5a, b and c above.
These items should be resolved as sug-gested in the evaluations and the resolutions included as part of the FSAR amendment package which implements the changes.
6.0 REFERENCE Letter, J.G.
- Haynes, Arizona Nuclear Power Project to G.W. Knighton,
- NRC, ANPP-39456-JGH/JKR/9805, 'dated December 19, 1986.
l