ML20134H631
| ML20134H631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134H626 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508290067 | |
| Download: ML20134H631 (2) | |
Text
f ec s
u
_,g UNITED STATES E.
3(; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 41 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 13, 1984, the Consumers Power Company (CPC) submitted a request for changes to the Palisades Plant Technical Specifications.
The amendment would require the containment purge and ventilation isolation valves to be electrically locked closed during Hot Shutdown, Hot Standby and Power Operation conditions, and adds testing and surveillance require-ments for the valves. During a telephone conversation with the licensee regarding the specific identification of the valves, the licensee corrected the terminology used for identifying the valves. The staff made the appropriate corrections which did not change the valves and was an editorial change only.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Detennination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the reauested action was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 1984 (49 FR 33362).
No comments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has under review the generic concerns of purging and venting of reactor containments (Multiplant Action Iten No. B-24).
By letter dated June 13, 1984, the licensee proposed to electrically lock in the close position during Hot Shutdown, Hot Standby and Power Operation conditions the containment purge and ventilation isolation valves to preclude the release of radioactivity to the environs via the containment purge and ventilation system should a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) occur.
The licensee's June 13, 1984 letter proposed to change the Technical Speci-fication to require that containment purge exhaust isolation valves CV 1804, CV 1805, CV 1806, CV 1807 and CV 1808 and air room supply isolation valves CV 1813 and CV 1814 of the containment purge and ventilation lines, respec-tively, be electrically locked in the closed position during Hot Shutdown, Hot Standby and Power Operation conditions to assure that the containment purte and ventilation lines maintain containment isolation.
The licensee also proposed to change the Technical Specification Table 4.2.7 to reouire B508290067 850826 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
. checking the position of the valves' indicating lights in the control room once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and at least once every 6 months perform a leak rate test between each of the isolation valves to check their leak tightness and sten seals. The NRC staff finds that electrically locking the valves in the closed position during Hot Shutdown, Hot Standby and Power Operation conditions will preclude release of radioactivity to the environs through the containment purge and ventilation lines in the event of a LOCA.
The NRC staff also finds that checking the valves' positions once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is adequate to determine the valves are in the closed position and that per-foming a leak rate test once every 6 renths is adequate to assure the integrity of the valves.
The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed Technical Specification change is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance reovirenents. 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
~'
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasoneble assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed renner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be infrical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by John Stang.
Dated:
August 26, 1985