ML20151Y195
| ML20151Y195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y192 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602120618 | |
| Download: ML20151Y195 (2) | |
Text
'
.f
'o,,
UNITED STATES
+
{
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 95 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 CONSUPERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 30, 1985, the Consumers Power Company (CPC) submitted a request for a change to the Palisades Plant Technical Specifications for primary coolant system leakage.
The amendment clarifies the existing specifications for both unidentified leakage and identified leakage by defining more clearly the action to be taken when the limit for each is exceeded. The amendment also deletes a specification concerning primary to secondary leakage in the steam generators that was only applicable to cycle 2 operation which was completed several years ago.
2.0 EVALUATION The existing specifications for unidentified leakage and identified leakage from the primary coolant system state that when the limits (1 gpm and 10 gpm respectively) are exceeded the plant shall be placed in the hot shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. No time was allowed for identifying or eliminating the source of the leakage.
In some cases, the
, leakage measurements are erroneous because of changing plant conditions. The revised specification allows 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to identify or eliminate the source of leakage or place the plant in hot shutdown in the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This three phase approach is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications that are applicable to plants currently being licensed. The time allowances for each phase are comparable (4 hrs.
for identification and correcting, following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to hot standby, following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> to cold shutdown in the Standard Technical Specifications).
Comparing the revised Technical Specifications to the previous ones, it is noted that the total time allowed prior to hot shutdown remains the same.
The basis for the previous Technical Specifications also discussed identifying an unidentified leak and evaluating its effect on safe operation. Additional leakage measurements may be required to do this which are more accurately performed with the plant in a stable condition and not in the process of an inmediate shutdown. The basis section has been modified to reflect the specification changes. The staff finds these changes acceptable, hb0 kbobk e
F
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 The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chanae 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 that there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental 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 reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
Date:
January 30, 1986 Principal Contributor:
Thomas V. Wambach l
1