ML17305B627
| ML17305B627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17305B625 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107080226 | |
| Download: ML17305B627 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-41 AMENDMENT NO.
39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-51 AND AMENDMENT NO.
27 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-74 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS.
1 2
AND 3 DOCKET NOS.
STN 50-528 STN 50-529 AND STN 50-530
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 11, 1990, the Arizona Public Service Company (RPS) 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 Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees),
requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74, respectively).
The proposed changes would revise various sections of the Technical Specifications to eliminate typographical errors, provide clarification, improve consistency between the Technical Specifications for the three units, and delete administrative stipulations and/or allowa'nces no longer in effect.
2.0 DISCUSSION EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Units 1, 2, and 3.
Based on a review of the proposed
- changes, the staff found that the proposed revisions correct typographical errors, provide clarification, and delete stipulat~ons no longer in effect.
- However, APS proposed a change to page 2-6, Amendment No.
1 of the Unit 3 Technical Specifications.
This page was incorporated on page 2-5, Amendment No.
18 on June 9, 1989, and is no longer in the current Unit 3 Technical Specifications.
Therefore, this change was not found to be appropriate.
This issue was discussed and agreed to by the licensee.
The staff has concluded that the remaining proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are appropriate and acceptab le.
9i07080226 9i0627 PDR ADOCK 05000528 i
i P
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's,regulations, the California State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
impact statemen the issuance of
5.0 CONCLUSION
= These amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement.
Th'e NRC staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, 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 a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
These amendments also involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, with respect to these
- items, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental t or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with these amendments.
The Commission has concluded, based or the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(! ) 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Thompson Date:
June 27, 1991
I 0