ML20035C498
| ML20035C498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304080038 | |
| Download: ML20035C498 (3) | |
Text
[
'o UNITED STATES
[ " g ~~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..a /
..+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO 70 TO FArILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-62 IlllN015 POWER COMPANY SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE. INC.
CLINTON POWER STATION. UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-461
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Standard Technical Specifications (STS) developed for boiling wate reactors (BWR) describes reactor coolant system chemistry limits for conductivity, chloride concentration, and pH for each Operational Condition.
The purpose of this specification is to prevent damage to materials in contact with the reactor coolant system and to ensure that the structural integrity of the reactor coolant system is maintained.
Action statements are provided to ensure that appropriate actirms are taken when a chemistry parameter exceeds its specified limit. When chmmistry parameters exceed limits during Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3, shutdown actions are required.
Similarly, when such limits are exceeded during Operational Conditions 4 or 5, an engineering evaluation is required to ensure structural integrity prior to plant restart.
Due to a formatting error when developing the Clinton Power Station (CPS)
Technical Specifications (TS), TS 3.4.4 ACTION c.1.a does not specify any action if conductivity or pH limits are exceeded during Operational Conditions 4 or 5.
While ACTION c.l.b permits an engineering evaluation to verify structural integrity of the reactor coolant system if chloride concentration exceeds prescribed limits, ACTION c.l.a does not address similar actions.
By letter dated December 15, 1992, the Illinois Power Company (IP, the licensee), requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6? for the CPS. The proposed amendment would add a requirement to perform an engineering evaluation prior to plant restart of the impact on the reactor coolant system structural integrity if the reactor coolant system conductivity or pH exceeded their limit for specified time periods during plant shutdown condit Sns.
2.0 EVALUATION A comparison of the CPS TSs with recently licensed BWR facilities identifies an inconsistency regarding specification 3/4.4. 4, " Chemistry." TS 3/4.4.4 Identifies reactor coolant system limits for chloride concentration, 9304080038 930329 PDR ADOCK 05000461 P
PDR:
. conductivity, and pH for the different Operational Conditiens. The inconsistency involves actions to be taken during Operational Conditions 4 and 5 when chemistry limits are exceeded.
The draft STS for BWRs require an engineering evaluation to be performed to verify the structural integrity of the reactor coolant system prior to plant restart in the event that chemistry parameters exceed the TS limits. However, the CPS TSs were formatted in such a manner that an engineering evaluation was only required if the chloride concentration exceeded prescribed limits.
No actions are stated if conductivity or pH limits are exceeded during shutdown conditions.
The licensee's letter states that chemical decontamination of the Reactor Recirculation and Reactor Water Cleanup Systems is planned for the next refueling outage. This is currently scheduled for September 1993. Should the decontamination process result in conductivity or pH limits being exceeded for more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> during Operational Conditions 4 or 5, the current TSs could not be met.
The licensee's proposal is to make a formatting change so that the CPS TSs are similar to the draft STS. The change will require an engineering evaluation prior to plant restart if any of the chemistry limits of TS 3.4.4 are exceeded during plant shutdown for more than the prescribed time limits. The change does not alter the current chemistry limitations of the reactor coolant system nor does it alter the engineering evaluation that is to be performed.
The staff concurs that the intended action statement was to apply to all three chemistry parameters during shutdown conditions. Correction of this formatting error will introduce new conditions that will require an engineering evaluation and will provide appropriate action statements for the TSs. Therefore, based on our review, the staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a-facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no
- public comment on such finding (58 FR 7000). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compl!&nce with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common def ense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Douglas V. Pickett Date: March 29, 1993 1
.