ML20072A458
| ML20072A458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072A440 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301240030 | |
| Download: ML20072A458 (2) | |
Text
~
!{*
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
L WASHINGTO N. D. C. 20555 4,,,,,,./
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 73 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-255 Introduction By letter dated September 19, 1977, Consumers Power Company transmitted a Technical Specification Change Request to amend Appendix A of Provisional Operating License DPR-20.
The subject change involves clarification of selected surveillance requirements to make them consistent to plant design' and the philosophy of Standard Technical Specifications.
Evaluation The licensee has proposed to amend Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Paragraph 4.6.3.a to provide for alternate manual starting of safeguard ~s c
pumps between the control room and the local breaker.
The existing specification stipulates alternate starting between the control room and the C-33 panel.
The subject pumps do not have control capability from the C-33 panel.
4 The Final Safety Analysis Report in Section 8.3.2.2 describes operational control of 2400 v. components (which includes. safety injection, shutdown cooling and containment spray pumps) as follows:
" Operation of all 2400 volt equipment is effected and monitored in the control room... breakers on Buses 1C and ID are also capable of being controlled at the switchgear."
We agree that this change should be made to Paragraph 4.6.3.a to correctly provide for testing of the subject components in accordance with plant design operational capability.
The licensee has proposed to amend Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Paragraph 4.6.4.a to test SIRW tank outlet and containment sump isolation l
valves at least once per 92 days, rather than during testing of the associ-ated pumps.
This will not change test frequency, as the valves are cur-
)
rently tested at intervals not to exceed three months, which is the frequency specified for pump testing.
Rather, this change permits the licensee to test
'I the valves at a different time within the same interval as pump tests are performed; such that the risk of a potential valve misalignment adversely affecting a running pump is reduced.
8301240030 830120
~
PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
2-r We agree that this change should be made Jo Paragraph 4.6.4.a to minimize the potential for required valve testing having an adverse effect on reliability or operability of related safeguards pumps.
The licensee has also proposed to amend.Techgical Specifications, Appendix A, Paragraph 4.7.1.a to clarify that diesel generator start t'esting shall verify operability of the two independent starting circuits on an alternating basis.
This would be consistent with current philosophy as developed in Standard Technical Specifications (specifically, NUREG-0212) wherein a staggered test basis is specified, with one starting circuit demonstrated operable in each test. Thus, the diesel need not be subjected to more than one start to satisfy one test, if the circuit being tested achieves a successful start.
We agree that this change should be made to clarify the intent of the Technical Specifications to provide for testing of the A and B starting circuits on an alternating test basis.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent
~
types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and, pursuant to-10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because.the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
B. L. Jorgensen, NRC Regi~on III K. R. Ridgway, NRC Region III Date: January 20, 1983 t
- - - - _ _ - - _ _.. _ _.. -