ML17303A834
| ML17303A834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17303A832 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803140435 | |
| Download: ML17303A834 (8) | |
Text
~OS REOy~
~i 0O Ih g
O o
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
27 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
Py letter dated May 25, 1987, as amended by letter dated August 7, 1987, 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 Miexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees),
requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License NI'F-41) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit l.
The proposed changes would revise a number of Technical Specifications and can be categorized as those which (1) respond to changes in the regulations or regulatory guidance, (2) are more restrictive than ihe current Technical Specifications, or (3) are administrative changes since they are either editorial, provide clarification, remove redundancy or correct errors.
All of the changes would make those areas of the Technical Specifications consistent with the Technical Specifications previously reviewed and approved by the staff for Palo Verde, Units 2 and 3 (Facility Operating Licenses NPF-51 and NPF-74, respectively).
2.0 DISCUSSION The proposed amendment consists of approximately 200 changes that are specifically identified by item numbers in the licensees'ubmital and which can be grouped into the above three categories.
A discussion of these changes is presented below:
(a)
The proposed changes which respond to changes in the regulations or regulatory gudiance are as follows:
(i)
Item 103 deals with Specification 3/4.4.7 regarding specific activity limits for the primary coolant.
The proposed change would bring the Action Statement for specific activity in the primary coolant into conformance with Generic Letter 85-19.
Item 209 deals with Specification 6.8.1.5 regarding annual reports for the facility.
This proposed change would add to the annual reporting requirements the results of primary coolant specific activity analysis in which the primary coolant exceeds the limits of Specification 3/4.4.7.
Included with the above'803f40435 880302 pDR
@DOCK 05000'5~EI p
Ip,'
y
-2>>
changes are the associated administrative changes due to the
'evised bases
- section, revised table of contents and renumbered pages; these are Items 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
- 104, 105,
- 106, 108,
- 110, 112, 113, 114, and 119.
Item 206 deals with Specification 6.7.1.c regarding the Safety Limit Violation Report.
The proposed change would revise the time for submitting, such a report from within 14 days to within 30 days, which is in conformance with the requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.73(a).
(b)
The proposed changes which are more restrictive than the current Technical Specifications are as follows.
Item 35 deals with the bases section for boration systems (Specification 3/4.1.2).
The proposed change would add to the list of components required to perform boron injection by including the volume control tank and an associated valve.
Item 96 deals with Specification 4.4.3.2 regarding the surveillance requirements for the auxiliary spray system.
The proposed change would include surveillance requirements for two additional valves associated with the system.
(iii)
(iv)
(v.)
Item 126 deals with Specification 4.5.2.e regarding 18-month surveillances for emergency core cooling subsystems.
The proposed change would add components to the surveillances by including the piping outside containment which is in contact with sump water during loss-of-coolant accident conditions.
Items 159 and 160 deal with Specification 4.8.1.3 regarding surveillance requirements for the cathodic protection system.
The proposed changes would modify the surveillance intervals from 92 to 61 days and from 18 to 12 months.
Item 207 deals with Specification 6.8.1.g regarding limitations on making modifications to the core protection calculator software.
The proposed change would include additional limita-tions on making modifications to the software.
Item 80 is an associated administrative change to the bases section for the core protection calculator to make it consistent with the proposed change to Specification 6.8.1.g.
(c)
The remaining items of proposed changes are either editorial, provide clarification, remove redundancy or correct errors.
Examples of these types are as follows:
4
(i)
Item 203 deals with Specification 6.5.3.5.1 regarding the audit of the Pre-planned Alternate Sampling Program (PASP) and its implementing procedures.
The proposed change would delete this redundant Specification since the controls for PASP and its procedures are addressed in Specification 6.8.1.
Item 211 deals with Specification 6.16 regarding (1)
NRC approval of PASP by Region V prior to implementation and (2) reporting changes to PASP in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
The proposed change would delete this Specification since (1)
NRC approval for PASP was granted on January 14, 1986 and (2) Specification 6.9.1.8, which defines the, content for the'Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, doesn't require that changes to PASP be reported therein..
(ii) Item 92 deals with the footnotes for Specifications 3.4.1.4.1 regarding operability of the shutdown cooling loops.
The proposed editorial change would move one footnote ahead of the other two since it appears first in the text.
(iii) Item 115 deals with Specification 3.4. 10 regarding -reactor coolant system vent paths.
The proposed change would clarify the locations for verifying the operability of the reactor coolant system vent paths by specifically stating that the, locations are the reactor vessel head and the pressurizer steam space.
(iv) Item 155 deals with a misspelled word on page 3/4 7-22.
The proposed change would correctly spell the word "susceptible."
- 3. 0 EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the above changes.
As a result of that review, the staff has made the following determinations.
Essentially all of the proposed changes have no safety significance and are adminsstrative in nature in that they are either editorial, provide clarification, remove redundancy or correct errors.
The remaining few are changes which respond to changes in regulation or regulatory guidance, or are changes which are more restrictive than the current Technical Specifications.
All of the areas of change were previously reviewed and accepted by the staff in developing the Technical Specifications for Palo Verde, Units 2 and 3, and are included in the Specifications issued for Palo Verde, Units 2 and 3.
All these changes will make those portions of the Palo Verde, Unit 1 Specifications consistent with the Specifications for Units 2 and 3.
On the basis of the above evaluation, the staff finds the proposed changes to the Palo Verde, Unit 1 Specifications to be acceptable.
I QF 1) 4 I
i 1
4 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 these changes.
No comments were received.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves administrative changes.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issua'nce 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 by 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'not be inimical to the cowen defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable.
Principal contributor:
E. Licitra Dated:
March 2, 1988
t