ML17303A221
| ML17303A221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17303A220 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701140175 | |
| Download: ML17303A221 (4) | |
Text
+p,P 4EQy>
Vp
~
+ <<
O~
A O
C>
0
/p +**++
UNITED STATES
'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMIENT NO.
12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-41 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET AL.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR-GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO.
STN 50-528
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 21, 1986, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on behalf of itself, 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 Mater and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees),
requested a chanae to the Technical Specifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (Appendix A to Facility Operating License NPF-41).
The application requests that the surveillance requirements for charcoal filters in several sections of the Technical Specifications be revised to be consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 83-. 13 and with those same sections in the Palo Verde, Unit 2 Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License NPF-51) previously reviewed and approved by the staff.
2.0 DISCUSSION Sections 4.6.4.3, 4.7.7, 4.7.8 and 4.9.12 of the Palo Verde, Unit 1 Technical Specifications provide the surveillance requirements for the containment hydrogen purge cleanup
- system, the control room essential filtration system, the engineered safety features (ESF) pump room air exhaust cleanup
- system, and the fuel buildino essential ventilation system, respectively.
Subsection f for each of those sections specifies that the removal efficiency of the charcoal'dsorbers in these svstems be equal or greater than 99.95K for removal of a halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas.
By application dated August 21, 1986, APS proposed that the charcoal adsorber removal efficiency for the above four systems be changed from 99.95% to 99.0%
for removal of a halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas.
In support of its request, APS stated that the 99.0X efficiency is consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter No. 83-13, "Clarification of Surveillance Requirements for HEPA Filters and Charcoal Adsorber Units in Standard Technical Specifications on ESF Cleanup Systems",
dated March 2, 1983.
In addition, APS stated that the 99.0% removal efficiency is consistent with the 95K radioiodine removal efficiency for the ESF filtration system as assigned in the Palo Verde Safety Evaluation Report.
PDR '40'>>
87OiO7 870ig
- DacK osoaome PDR
, ~
3.0 EVALUATION The staff has evaluated the licensees'roposed amendment request.
Based on that evaluation, the staff finds that the proposed removal efficiency of 99.0X for halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas removal in the above four systems is consistent with an ESF filtration system radioiodine removal efficiency of 95K, which is in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter No. 83-13.
The staff had previously reviewed and approved a 99.0% removal efficiency for halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant test gas for the.above systems in Palo Verde, Unit 2, which is identical to Palo Verde, Unit 1, prior to issuing the Technical Specifications for Unit 2.
The proposed changes on Unit 1 make these portions of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications consistent with those previously approved on the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes on the Palo Verde, Uiiit 1 Technical Specifications are acceptable.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency has been advised of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration with regard to this request for changes to the Technical Specifications.
No comments were received.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that mav be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued proposed findinos that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such findings.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eliaibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec. 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0 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 bv operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will riot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health arid safety of the public.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable.
Principal Contributor:
C. Nichols Dated:
January 7,
- 1987,
1
~
I