ML20082N016
| ML20082N016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082N014 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109060141 | |
| Download: ML20082N016 (2) | |
Text
f#%
=
/
y ff
'n UNITED STATES
! e( 3,/ I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
g g/
4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDHENT NO. 40 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF 51 l
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. STN 50-529 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated May 29, 1991, Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the licensee) on behalf of itself and the Salt River Project Agricultural improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison Company, El Paso i
Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees).
I requested changes to Technical Specifications (TS) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2 located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
APS has proposed changes to -TS 3/4.7.9, which currently requires snubber functional testing every 18 months plus or minus 25 percent, when 0 snubbers are inoperable
-per inspection period.
Under these conditions, the snubber functional tr. ting l
for Unit 2 must be completed no later than September 25, 1991. As a result, Unit 2 would be required to shut down just prior to the planned refueling i
outage, currently scheduled to begin October 17, 1991.
The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension-to the current surveillance requirement. The proposed change would add a footnote to surveillance requiremont 4.7.9e which l
would. allow functional _ testing for the snubbers to be deferred until the next j
refueling outage, but no later than December 17, 1991.
1 2.0 EVALUATION f
The proposed change to TS 3/4.7.9 would allow snubber functional testing to be completed during the upcoming refueling outage, thus preventing an unplanned l
outage.
i By reviewing the previous snubber tests for Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it was noted-that every surveillance test performed on hydraulic snubbers has successfully satisfied the TS acceptance criteria surveillance requirement l
4.7.9f.
Therefore, there has not been a history of problems with hydraulic snubbers at-PVNGS.
l Currently, the snubber functional testing is due no later than= September 25,
)
1991. -The amendment requests an extension-to allow testing to be performed.
- between October 17:and December 17, 1991, coinciding with the planned refueling-l outage.
The staff finds that this extension is minor, and early shutdown to i
meet the current surveillance requirements appears to be unwarranted.
i As a result of these consideratior.s, the staff concludes that the proposed TS l
change at PVNGS Unit 2 is acceptable.
f 9109060141 910827 l
ADOCK050g59 PDR P-I
2
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 amendment changes 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. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves r.o 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 29268). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(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 amendnent.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the t.onsiderations 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 Consnission'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: August 27, 1991
.