ML20148B218
| ML20148B218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148B201 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803210390 | |
| Download: ML20148B218 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s
[gha age; * 'o, UNITED STATES E'
"i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.,, -
t WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
,J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-51 AND AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-74 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. STN 50-529 AND 50-530
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 14, 1987, as revised by letter dated October 1, 1987, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on behalf of itself, the Salt River Proj1ct Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Eoian 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 a change to the Technical Specifications for the Palo Verde huclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-51 and NPF-74, respectively). The proposed change would revise the manimum enrichment for reload fuel from 4.0 to 4.05 weight percent U-235.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensees have requested that the maxinNm enrichment for reload fuel for Palo Verde. Units 2 and 3 be increased from 4.0 to 4.05 weight percent U-235 and that Technical Specification 5.3.1 be revised accordingly. The reason for the request is to allow the desired fuel management for future 18-month equilibrium cycles.
In support of this proposed change, the licensees have provided the following information.
The accidents which are affected by increasing the fuel enrichment are j
those dealing with storage of new and spent fuel. The Palo Verde Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) provides the results of accident analyses for both storage facilities.
l The licensees' submittal includes a letter by Combustion Engineering, dated l
May 27, 1987, which verifies that the original analyses of the new fuel, spent fuel (except as noted below) and intermediate racks, as well as the fuel elevator, fuel upender and transfer machine were all performed for Since the k values based on the 4.30 weight percent U-235 fuel.
storageof4.30weightpercentU-235fuelmeI[7the hRC acceptance criteria i
of no greater than 0.95 for fully flooded (unborated) conditions ano 0.98 I
l for optimum moderation conditions, the Palo Verde fuel storage facilities are acceptable for the storage of 4.05 weight percent U-235 fuel.
!k A O h9
4 2
One excestion is the analysis of the spent fuel racks with neutron poison (boren) soxes in the cells. This high density mode was analyzed for a maximum enrichment of 4.0 weight percent U-235. Therefore, if a future decision is made to use this mode for storage of higher enriched fuel, an analysis will be required for this higher enrichment. A footnote has been added to the licensees' proposed Technical Specification 5.3.1 to make this point clear.
Therefore, on the basis of the above evaluatien, the staff concludes that the proposed change to Technical Specification 5.3.1 is acceptable.
3.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency was advised of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration with regard to this change.
No coments were received.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The 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 Comission has previously issued proposed findings that the sendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such findings. Accordingly, the amendments teet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Corrnission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendrents will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. We, therefore, cerclude that the proposed change is acceptable.
Principal Contributor:
E. A. Licitra Dated: March 9, 1988