ML20028H204
| ML20028H204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028H203 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011160108 | |
| Download: ML20028H204 (2) | |
Text
.
3, M tos o
g-UNITED STATES f
g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j;
E WASHINGTON, D, C. 20665
/
t f
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
{
l RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-62 j
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
j t
CLINTON POWER STATION, Chli NO. 1 DOCKET NO.30-461 l
)
1.0L INTRODUCTION j
i L
By letter dated December 21, 1988, IllinoisPowerCompany,etal.(the L
. licensee) requested seven changes to the Clinton Power Station Technical 1
Specifications. The sixth proposed change would add a note to Technical J
Specification.(TS) 3/4.4.1.3 to specify that the recirculation loop flow is I
the summation of the flows from all of the jet pumps associated with a single l
recirculation loop.
12.0 EVALUATION-Clinton TS:3/4.4.1.3 provides limits on the allowed recirculation loop flow 1
mismatch.in order to comp (ly with the emergency core cooling system (ECCS)
- . loss-of-coolant accident LOCA) analysis design criteria for two recircula-1 tion loop operation. -These limits were based on recirculation loop flow j
.beingLthe summation of the flows from all of the jet aumps associated with a l
single. recirculation loop.
The licensee has stated t1at the term "recircula--
i tionLloopiflow" could be incorrectly interpreted to mean the total recircula-1 tion. loop drive flow which is typically 45% of the total loop flow and.has_
j atherefore proposed to add a specific definition for.' recirculation loop flow.
Since the proposed definition is consistent with the intent of the specifi-
]
cation, the proposed change is acceptable.
'3.01 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This-amendment involves a change to a requirement'with respect to the instal-lationtor use of a facility. component located within theLrestricted area as
, defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. 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 Commission has previously
' issued a proposed finding that this amendment' involves no significant hazards
. consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set-p 901116010s 901108 DR-ADOCK 0500 1
L
forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor 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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission'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.
Principal Contributor: John B. Hickman, NRR Dated: flovember 8 1990 k
l 1
.._.q