ML17312B011

Ack Receipt of Re Cycle 6 SG Evaluation Rept.Rai Encl in Order to Complete Evaluation of Rept

ML17312B011
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/25/1996
From:	Clifford J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	James M. Levine ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
TAC-M96528, NUDOCS 9610290198
Download: ML17312B011 (6)

Text

October 25, 1996 Mr. James M. Levine Executive Vice President, Nuclear Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 53999

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 I

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE UNIT 3,CYCLE 6 STEAM GENERATOR EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PALO VARDE NUCLEAR

'ENERATING STATION UNIT NO."',3 (TAC NO. M96528)

Dear Mr. Levine:

We have reviewed the subject report submitted by your letter dated August 6, 1996.

To complete our evaluation of the report, we request that you provide additional information identified in the enclosure.

Timely response to this request would allow us to complete our assessment of the safety significance of your proposed operation of Unit 3 for a full cycle in time to support any interim assessments that may be necessary.

In conducting our assessment, we will determine whether or not the proposed operation conforms to all applicable Commission safety standards, and not the procedural standards of 10 CFR 50.92 that were discussed in your August 6, 1996 letter.

Please contact me at 301-415-1352 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By James W. Clifford, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.

STN 50-530 DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File

Enclosure:

Request for Additional PUBLIC Information JRoe EAdensam cc w/encl:

See next page WBateman JClifford EPeyton

ACRS, TWFN PDIV-2 Reading

OGC, 015B18

KPerkins, WCFO

JDyer, RIV

DKirsch, WCFO RWessman DOCUMENT NAME: PV96528.RAI OFC NAME DATE PD IV-2/PH JCl ford 10'/96 PD IV-2/LA 10/%796 QFDI

) j OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9610290i98 9bi025 PDR ADQCK 05000530 P'DR grig ppI. I",8)7HI CSPV Prh~

~

~

Mr. James M. Levine October 25, 1996 cc w/encl:

Mr. Steve Olea Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Douglas Kent Porter Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Generation Resources P.O.

Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770 Senior Resident Inspector USNRC P. 0.

Box 40

Buckeye, Arizona 85326 Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower 8 Pavillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTN:

Chairman 301 W. Jefferson, 10th floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Ms. Angela K. Krainik, Manager Nuclear Licensing Arizona Public Service Company P.O.

Box 52034

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Mr. John C. Horne, Vice President Power Supply Palo Verde Services 2025 N. Third Street, Suite 220

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

4 I

Enclosure RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO PALO VERDE UNIT 3 STEAM GENERATOR EVALUATION REPORT By letter dated August 6, 1996, Arizona Public Service, submitted a steam generator evaluation report intended to support full cycle operation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3.

In order for the staff to complete its review, responses to the'following questions/comments are requested.

Provide a comparison of the actual steam generator tube inspection results to those which were predicted (or assumed) for such items as the

number, length,

depth, and voltage of the indications.

With respect to the comparisons between actual and projected values:

(1) any discrepancies should be discussed

[e.g.,

from Figure 4.3, the expected number of indications appeared to be under predicted by the methodology (i.e., the actual number of indications appears to exceed the 50 percent probability value for the expected number of indications)];

(2) differences between previous submittal'esults should be addressed (i.e., Figure 4.3 does not match a similar figure provided in the January 5,

1996 letter);

and (3) the frequency axes of these figures should be clarified.

Provide a comparison of the latest Unit 3 results to past Unit 3/Unit 2 results and compare these results to the structural limits.

2.

Provide a summary of the results from in-situ pressure testing performed at Units 2 and 3.

3.

Discuss your plans for in-situ pressure testing and tube pulls in the next Unit 3 outage for monitoring degradation morphology and assessing inspection reliability.

fl