ML20246K936
| ML20246K936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1989 |
| From: | De Agazio A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246K941 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909060176 | |
| Download: ML20246K936 (5) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
e 7590-01 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. 44 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT
{_
DOCKET NO. 50-255 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 issued to the Consumers Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action The propo"sd amendment involves revising tne Palisades Plant Technical Specifications (TS) relating to containment integrity. Specifically, the proposed amenament, submitted by application dated September 15, 1988, and
~
supplemented by letter dated June 23, 1989, would revise Technical Specification Sections 1.4, 3.6.1, and 3.6.5, and would add a new Section 4.5.6.
The proposed amendment also would add a new Table 3.6.1 to identify all containment penetrations and isolation valves.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The changes proposed tre needed to (1) allow for manual operation of certain containment isolation valves for the purpose of sampling the Safety injection Tanks for boron while the reactor is at power, (2) provide consistency with the Standard Technical Specifications with respect to containment isolation valve requirements, and (3) reflect the present containment vent pathway.
8909060176 800822 POR ADOCK 05000255 P
l '.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
TS Section 4.2, Table 4.2.1.5, Minimum Frequencies for Sampling Tests, requires monthly sampling of the Safety Injection Tanks for boron concentration.
To obtain the required sample, it is necessary to open the manual isolation valves associc'ed with the Safety Injection Tank drain line and route the flow to the sample tap at the Nuclear Steam Sampling System. However, the current TS Section 3.6.1, Containment Intyrity, does not allow the opening of manual containment isolation valves except when the plant is in the cold shutdown condition. The proposed amendment would allow these valves to be opened while the plant is operating for the purpose of obtaining the required sample. The potential impsct of this change is that a release of radioactive rsaterial rould occur while the valves are opened for sampling. For a release to occur, however, the following conditions would have to exist concurrently:
1.
An accident which results in core damage and release of fission products to the reactor coolant,
^
2.
A pathway for fission products to reach the environment from the reactor coolant via a failure of two check valves between the Reactor Coolant System and the Safety Injection Tank discharge piping, and 3.
The required safety injection tank sampling in procress with the manual containment isolation valves open.
An alternate accident scenario for a release to occur would be the following conditions concurrently:
1.
An accident which results in core damage and release of fission products to the containment from the reactor coc'. ant, 1
l
E...
~.
2.
A pathway for fission products to reach the environment from the i
containment via a failure of the Safety Injection Tank drain line so as to create communication of the containment atmosphere with the environment, and 3.
The required safety injection tank sampling in progress with the manual containment isolation valves open.
The first alternative scenario is beyond the design basis for the plant in that two check valves must fail for the pathway to exist. The plant design basis is that only a single active or passive compontnt is assumed to fail during the course of the accident.
The Final Safety Analysis Report offsite dose calculations are based on Standard Review Plan assumptions for thc <aximum hypott.itical accident. Those assumptions do not consider failure of lines penetrating containment. Therefore, the alternate scenario for activity release discussed above, which would require such a line failure, is beyond the plant design basis.
The proposed amendment would change the definition of " Containment Integrity" to reflect the addition of Table 3.6.1 and TS Section 4.5.2.
Table 3.6.1 lists all rentainment penetrations and the penetration isolation require-ments. 15 Section 4.5.2 adds surveillance requirements for the containment valves. Neither the definition change, the added table listing penetration isolation requirements, nor the added surveillance requirements affect the installation or manner of operation of any plant equipment beyond permitting opening of the manual valves discussed above.
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed amendment and has determined that there would be no increase in
l y,
l any radiological' plant effluents released offsite during normal (non-accident)
L
. operation.
The Commission has also determined that the probability of accidents has not been increased by.the proposed changes, and 'that post-accident radiological releases would not be greater than determined previously.
The proposed changes do not increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, the. Commission concludes that this action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed changes to requirements with respect to the use of a facility component and a change to a surveillance. requirement involves systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The changes do not affect non-radiological plant effluent's and have no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 20, 1989 (54 FK 25920).
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that the environmental effects of the proposed action are not significant, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendmer.t.
This
.would not reduce the environmental impacts attributable to this facility.
m 5.
i' <
l Denial of the action would prevent sampling the safety injection tanks from s
outside the containment. Although an alternate sampling scheme.is possible, entry into containment would be required and would result in substantially increased occupational radiation exposure.
Alternative Use of Resources:
- This action does not involve the use of resources'not previously considered
.in the Final Environmental Statement dated February 1978 related to operation of the Palisades Plant.
Agencies and Persons Contacted:
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 15, 1988, and letter dated June 23,1989.. which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington,'DC, and at the Van Zoeren Library, Hope College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Albert De Agazio, Actin Director Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V & Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- - _ _