ML18051A479
| ML18051A479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18051A477 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307080399 | |
| Download: ML18051A479 (3) | |
Text
e,.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255 By letter dated May 5, 1983, Consumers Power Company (the li.censee) requested an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications appended to License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant. The amendment would change the frequency of performing surveillance tests that require cold shutdown conditions to refueling outages rather than the eighteen months now specified.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Proposed No
- Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing.
related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1983 (48 FR 25026). A request for hearing and public comments were not received.
2.0 BACKGROUND
AND DISCUSSION Certain surveillance tests of components and systems either require a cold, shutdown condition to perform or, in a few cases, could have a negative impact on safe operation of the plant if performed during operation. These types of tests are presently required to be performed at eighteen-month intervals by the Palisades Technical Specifications. Examples of these types of tests are:
(1) calibration of sensors and transmitters of signals to the reactor protection system and engineered safety features actuation.
systems which require isolation of the sensors or transmitters during performance of the calibration; (2) automatic initiation and operation of*
engineered safety features systems; and (3) tests, inspections, or calibrations of components which are inaccessible during plant operation (e.g., containment radiation and humidity monitors, snubbers on pipes in high radiation areas, fire barriers in high radiation areas, etc.). The specified eighteen-month interval should normally allow sufficient time so that the tests can be performed at refueling outages, a normal fuel cycle at Palisades being about 15 months.
The specification includes an allowance for operational contingencies of 25 percent, such that the testing could be delayed until 22.5 months after the previous test.
Palisades Plant is presently completing fuel cycle 5 with the planned shutd.own for refueling to occur on August 13, 1983. This is 23~ months since the beginning of the last refueling outage (September 1981 to
- January 1982).
Some of the required surveillance tests were performed near the beginning of that outage. The licensee has requested a permanent change to the Technical Specifications to replace the eighteen~month requirement with a.requirement to perform the tests at refueling outages. This would obviate putting the reactor through a shutdown transient one.month ahead of a scheduled. shutdown* solely to perform these surveillance tests. Cycle 5 lasted longer than the expected 15 months because of several outages at the beginning of the cycle caused by equipment problems.
3.0 EVALUATION In support of this requested change to the Technical Specification, the licensee provided a.tabulation of the.results of the last three tests on the equipment involved *. The results verified operability. There were a few instances of minor variances such as instrument drift (less than 2 percent).
We would expect, therefore, that the equipment would continue to be reliable for the additional month.of opetation.
Thi~ involves an increase of about 5.. percent in the maximum allowable *time between testing and calibration to verify operability.
We conclude.that this small extension of the interval between tests is acceptable and has an insignificant effect on the equi.pment reliability which the testing is to verify. However, we conclude that a permanent change to the Technical Specifications is not warranted.
For a normal cycle, the* 18-month requirement allows sufficient time to complete a fuel cycle between tests. If.there are significaritly long outages during a cycle, especially several months since the performance of the last tests, we would expect the licensee to perform the tests during such outages.
In the present case, the unscheduled outages-occurred early in the cycle so that not much would have been gained by reperforming
. the tests within a few months of the last test. Also the resulting increase in_ time to the end of cycle was very small. If such circumstances occur in the future, we believe that each such case should be examined on its merits and be the subject of individual change requests as they occur if they can be justified. Therefore, we are granting this change for only
\\ this cycle, by adding a.condition to the license that provides the requir~d relief.
We have discussed this modification with the licensee and have mutually agreed to this license condition~ in addition to a compatible change to the Technical Specification Paragraph 3.B of the license.
'\\
~
, ~.
- 3 i
4.0 ENVI ONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We t; ve determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effl ent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and wi 11 not esult in any significant environmental impact.
Having made.this detE mination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an acti n which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impf t and, pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact stat ment or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not e prepared in connection with the issuance of t.his amendment.
5.0 CONC USION We t ve concluded, based on the considerations discussed above; that:
(1) here is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the publ c will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) uch activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regL ations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the ommon defense and security or to the health and safety of the pub.lie.
6.0 ACK~ WLEDGEMENT T.
~ mbach prepared this evaluation.
Dated:
- l. ly 7, 1983