ML20128N248
| ML20128N248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128N240 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610160331 | |
| Download: ML20128N248 (2) | |
Text
i
[p+"*%
\\
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.173 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MLISADES PLAM A
DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated January 5, 1996, and July 12, 1996, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TS) for the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The proposed changes are related to shutdown cooling (SDC) requirements of TS 3.1.9.3.
The current TS requires that one SDC train be in operation with both SDC trains operable. The licensee proposed to add the refueling cavity with water level 647 feet as a third backup means of decay heat removal to the TS. The licensee stated that this would provide flexibility to allow one train of SDC to be rendered inoperable to conduct testing or maintenance of the SDC system and support systems during refueling i
outages.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed TS change would allow the SDC backup capability to be provided by either a second operable SDC train or the refueling cavity filled to at least the 647-foot elevation. The licensee stated that a filled refueling cavity would provide a substantial heat sink for removal of decay heat if the operating SDC system became unavailable. This heat sink would ensure for a reasonable period of time that fuel design limits would not be exceeded, which would provide time to restore an SDC system to operation or to provide other means of decay heat removal.
Heat would be transferred from the reactor core to the water in the refueling cavity by natural circulation with or without the reactor internals upper guide structure installed. The licensee stated that the upper guide structure is an open structure which does not provide any significant restriction to natural circulation flow between the reactor core and the water in the reactor cavity.
The proposed change to add the refueling cavity with water level 1647 feet is consistent with NUREG-1432, " Standard Teuinical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants," (STS).
STS Section 3.9.4, "SDC and Coolant Circulation -
High Water Level," requires that a minimum of one loop of SDC shall be in operation in Mode 6 with the water level 2 23 feet above the top of the reactor vessel flange. Thus, per the STS, the second train of SDC could be rendered inoperable for testing or maintenance during this time period.
i 9610160331 961010 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
The staff has verified the Palisades upper guide structure design and confirmed that a refueling cavity water level of 647 feet equates to a water 1evel of at least 23 feet above the top of the reactor vessel flange. The proposed changes are consistent with current staff positions as reflected in the STS.
The staff finds that the proposed changes provide an acceptable i
backup method of decay heat removal and are therefore acceptable.
l
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The Michigan State official had no comments.
l
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 44348). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) thro is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will no, 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Desai Date: October 10, 1996 l
l I