ML20028H541
| ML20028H541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028H539 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101090110 | |
| Download: ML20028H541 (2) | |
Text
... -.. - -. _. _. _ _ _
... -. -.. ~....
..-~ -._-_ __..~
S dies
- UNITED STATES p, -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u
,p
- wAsmoToN; D. C,20665
.9 x
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 25 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-74 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION.- UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. STN 50-530
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 14, 1990, Arizona Publi: Service Conpany (APS) on behalf of itself and 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 -for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit ~ No. 3 located in Maricopa County Arizona. The proposed changes would-postpone the required performance of-the.18-month 125 V battery service tests (Specification 4.8.2.1.d) and the-containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective device operability tests-(Specification 4.8.4.1.a.2).
2.0:' DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The requested changes,-if approved, would extend the surveillance intervals for these tests a maximum of 3.5 months for-the batteries and 5 months for the overcurrent protective devices beyond the 25% maximum allowed by Specification -
4.0.2.
To document this one aime extension, the licensee proposed to add a footnote, "The surveillance requirement will be performed prior to the end of the next: refueling outage or by. June' 15,-1991," to the two specifications-mentioned above.-
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes and finds them acceptable based on the following justification:-
-(1)- The extensions are short.
- (2) The risk.to safety is low in comparison to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances.
(3) -Required weekly and-quarterly-surveillance tests (electrolyte level, temperature and specific gravity; cell voltage and overall battery t
condition) of the batteries provide some indication of battery operability.
910109011o 910103 PDR ADOCK 05000530 P
, - -,, _. = _ -. _, _ _.. - -.
.' (4) The containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices scheduled to be tested provide backup protection for other primary protective devices which are current in regard to required surveillance. The surveillance is also on a 10% sampling basis in lieu of 100% testing.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves changes with respect to the installation or use of a facnity component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, or changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released of fsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Cocmission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment.
4.0 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in cumpliance with the Cormission's regulations, and 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:
F. Burrows, SELB Dated:
January 3,1991 l
l l
.