ML20083E533
| ML20083E533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083E530 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9110030019 | |
| Download: ML20083E533 (2) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _.
f* ** *%
Q c
!\\
F UNITED STATES -
3.g n
[
tl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
a WASHINoTON, D C. 20606 n,,....+f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 41 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-51 ARIIONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. STN 50-529
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter of July 13, 1941, 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 to facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74, respectively). The 4
Arizona-Public Service Company submitted this request on behalf of itself, the Salt River Project Agricultural improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison Company, E', Faso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority. APS has proposed changes to TS 4.8.1.1.2.d.1 which currently requires surveillance for the diesel generators (DGs) to be p,erformed every 18 months plus or minus 25 percent. Under these conditions,-the Train "B" DGs for Unit 2 must be inspected in accordance with procedures prepared in conjunction with its manufacturer's recommendations for this class of standby service no later than Septent>er 29, 1991. As a result Unit 2 would be required to shut down just prior to the planned refueling outage currently scheduled to begin October 17, 1991.
The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extens<on to the current surveillance requirement.
2.0. EVALUATION In accordance with TS 4.8.1.1.2.d.1, Train "B" DGs for Unit 2 must be inspccted in accordance with procedures prepared in conjunction with its manufacturer's recommendations for this class of standby-service no later than September 29, 1991. Under current conditions, an. unscheduled shutdown of Unit 2 would be required approximately-three woe'<s prior to the planned start of the third refueling outage,-currently scheduled to begin on October 17, 1991. The licensee has proposed to extend the Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.1 for Unit 2 DGs by allowing a one-time extension to the current 18 months
. surveillance plus the additional 25% allowed by Section 4.0.2.
The proposed change would add a-footnote to Surveillance Recuirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.1, allowing surveillance for the Unit 2 DGs to be performe: between October 17 and December 31, 1991, coinciding with the planned refueling outage.
9110030019 910919 PDR ADOCK 05000530 P.-
2 The previous Unit 2 DG inspection on Train "A" was perfonned on January 5, 1990, and Train "B" was inspected on November 8,1989.
In addition, since initial licensing, the DG on Train "A" has had 127 starts as of May 2,1991, with one f ailure, and Train "B" has had 120 starts as of May 9,1991, with zero failures. Therefore, there has not been a history of problems with DGs at PVNGS, Unit 2.
Based on the past perfonnance of the DGs, the staff finds that a short extension of the surveillance requirement to no later than Decenber 31, 1991, is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Arizona State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the testricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cunulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission 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 37576). Accordirgly, 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 ossessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concMed. b:. sed on the considerations discussed abovt, 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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment willnat be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Catherine M. Thompson Dated: September 19, 1991
-