ML17306B067
| ML17306B067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17306B066 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210230252 | |
| Download: ML17306B067 (4) | |
Text
~8 4Ecy P
~4 0
Op 0
C' I
40 qO
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9210230252 921015 PDR ADOCK 05000528 P
PDR SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AM NDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING 'LICENSE NO. NPF-41 AMENDMENT NO.
53 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-51 AND AMENDMENT NO. 40 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 December 30, 1991, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Palo Verde Nuclear. Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
(Appendix A'o Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74, respectively).
The Arizona Public Service Company submitted this request on behalf of itself, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison
- Company, El Paso Electric Company, Publ.ic Service Company of New Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and
- Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority.
The proposed changes would revise the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valve ACTION statements to require the facility to be placed in HOT STANDBY, as opposed to HOT SHUTDOWN, in six hours in the event that uncorrectable problems are encountered with these valves.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Technical Specification 3.6. 1.7 governs the operability requirements for the 42-inch and the 8-inch containment purge and exhaust isolation valves.
When one of these valves is not sealed closed as required and the penetration cannot be isolated within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, the ACTION statement requires that the unit be placed in the HOT SHUTDOWN operational mode (reactor shutdown and reactor coolant temperature between 350-210 degrees F) within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in the COLD SHUTDOWN operational mode (reactor shutdown and reactor coolant temperature less than 210 degrees F) within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
The l.icensee proposes,to change the ACTION statement to require the unit to be brought to the HOT STANDBY operational mode in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, rather than the HOT SHUTDOWN operational mode.
The licensee states that the current requirement is inconsistent with other specifications and that an error was made in the original licensing of the Palo Verde units when a boiling water reactor
Ql li 1
technical specification was inappropriately applied to Palo Verde for the resolution of the containment purge generic issue.
In reviewing this matter, we find that the current specification is indeed inconsistent with other ACTION statements.
In particular, it is different from the specification governing containment isolation 'valves, as well as Technical Specification 3.0.3, which specifies the action to be taken if a limiting condition for operation cannot be met at all. It is also inconsistent with 10 other technical specifications regarding containment systems.
We conclude that bringing the unit to HOT STANDBY is the correct action to take, and that the current ACTION statement is an error.
The licensee's proposed change is therefore acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arizona State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The 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 change surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards considera-
- tion, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 9437).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0
,CONCLUSION The Commission 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Trammell Date:
October 15, 1992
i'