ML20004F871
| ML20004F871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F870 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106260071 | |
| Download: ML20004F871 (2) | |
Text
.
o (etc, n
p
>d v
UNITED STATES O 8 ^ '.n i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b' f **
a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55
$y8
% *.v SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 66 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 26, 1981 Consumers Power Company (CPC) (the licensee) requested that the surveillance interval between required surveillance tests on certain systems and instruments be extended. The extension was requested to permit the reactor to complete the 57 days remaining between the first scheduled surveillance test and the beginning of the scheduled 1981 refueling outage.
2.0 BACKGROUND
A large number of surveillance tests are required to assure the operational readiness of reactor instruments and components.
These tests are generally scheduled for surveillance at intervals determined by the expected per-formance of the system and the ability of the instruments to remain within specified tolerances.
Many tests, particularly those on systems with proven reliability that cannot be tested with the reactor in operation, are scheduled to be carried out annually or during the periodic refueling outages.
In order to bring about consistency, standardization and enforcability in the specifications issued by the NRC, the surveillance interval for these tests has customarilly been specified as 12 months and 18 months for the
. annual and refueling tests.
3.0 EVALUATION The 1979-1980 refueling outage.st Palisades was extended by approximately 6 rmnths to complete modifications required by NRC. Many of the refueling and annual surveillance requirements were satisfied near_ the beginning of that outage. Because of the length of the os age some of the surveillance requirements have come due as early as June 198i although less than 12 months of operation has elapsed. These surveillanco requirements cannot be satisfled without shutting the reactor down to gain access to the components.
l 81o s 2 600M r
L
We have reviewed the requested extensions and have determined that Test R0-28 Control Room Ventilation and Test R0-13 Normal Shut Down Sequencer can be carried out without shutting the reactor down and without unnecessary
. radiation exposure to operating personnel. Therefore, there is no basis for deferral of.these tests. The licensee has agreed to conduct these two surveillance tests on schedule. We have further determined that Test RR-10 Area Monitor Calibration is not required prior to the scheduled August 8,1981 shutdown for refueling and therefore does not require an extension.
We have reviewed the licensee's request for extending the interval for per-forming the other seven surveillance tests and have concluded that the requested extension results in an insignif'. cant increase of less than 15% in the allowed time betweta testing. We have reviewed the performance of this equipment in the previous surveillance test and determined that none of tne systems or componer;ts prop; sed for extension failed the previous test.
The Palisades Technical Specifications require that if a surveillance interval is lengthened beyond the nominal value specified, that the next two surveillance intervals be shortened to assure that the combined interval time for any three consecutive surveillance intervals not exceed 3.25 times the specified surveillance interval.
Based upon the above evaluation we have concludei that the extension of the surveillance interval for these seven tests will have an insignificant impact on the safe operation of the plant and the subsequent shortening of future surveillance intervals will assure that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained in the future. Therefore, the proposed extension is acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluents 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the consideration discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the pro-bability or consequences of accident previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, 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 con-ducted 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 Date: June 12,1981
.