ML18054B528
| ML18054B528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18054B527 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004060378 | |
| Download: ML18054B528 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICEOrNlJC:llAR REACTOR REGULATION REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM"1JPGRADE---:-"fHERMAL11ARG1N-MONITOR AUDIT CONFIRMITORY ITEM - TEMPERATURE QUALIFICATION CONSUMER-S POW Elf COf.fPANY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 15, 1988 the Commission issued Amendment No. 118 to Provisional Operating Licence No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant.
To support the_ review of the proposed amendment the staff performed an audit to tl1~ Thermal Margin Monitor (TMM).
As a result of th audit Consumers Power Company (CPCo) committed to review the TMM installation and design and confirm that the operating temperature of the TMM is bounded by the qualification testing.
CPCo submitted their analysis by letterdated December 28, 1988.
The Safety Evaluation addresses the acceptability of CPCo's analysis.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION*
The audit performed by the Staff at Palisades resulted in two issues related to the temperature qua 1 ification of the H'.M.
The first issue was that it was not clear to the staff that the installed configuration was bounded by the tested configuration used to determine the allcwable maximum ambient temperature.
The second issue involved the requirement to shuw that the design basis operating temperature is bcunded by the qualification testing.
In the original audit findings the staff noted that standing order 54 had been issu~J by the licensee to limit maximum control room temperature to 90°F, rE~uced from the 120°F Technical Specification limit and the 140°F FSAR design basis.
In their December 28, 1988 submittal, CPCo provided ar. "Engineering Analysis, Thermal Margin Monitor - Thermal Analysis.~ CPCo concluded that the existing natural ccnvecticn coolin£ was inadequate and installed a cooling fan for each of the four TMM channels. The analysis evaluated the fan size required and concluded that a 75 CFM fan would assure temperatures in the TMM lower than the tested configuration. The staf'( finds this QCCeptable.
The second issue involving the design basis operating temperature was addressed by CPCo in the December 28, 1988 submittal which stated that, "The
- design basis temperature for all control room instrumentation is 120°F con-tinuous operation. Therefore, the 131°F design temperature is acceptable for th 120°F design basis control room temperature". Additional clarification by the licensee indicated that even though the FSAR and Technical Specifications
- currently list higher temper~tures, their intent was that Standing Order 54 limit of 90°F would serve as the design basis since this was the maximum temperature assumed in the analysis. Standing Orders at Palisades are evaluated arid treated the same as technical specifications by the licensee.
Given a design basis te~perature maximum of 90°F the staff finds the installed configuration of the TMM to be bounded by the temperature qualification testing and therefore acceptable *.
I 9004060378 900328.
PDR ADOCK (i5000255
\\1 I P
.~..
3.0 CONCLUSION
The staff-concludes that the TMM temperature qualification testing bounds the installed Palisades configuration (with fans) and is therefore acceptable.
This resolution satisfies the confirmatory item of temperature qualification.
The FSAR and Technical Specifications should be revised to reflect Standing Order 54 limits.
CPCo has stated that it is their intention to do so.
Principal Contributor:
James.Stewart*