ML20044A747
| ML20044A747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A745 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007020169 | |
| Download: ML20044A747 (2) | |
Text
_.
pmE800
- f
+
o UNITED STATES
( e,
'g f-
.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
WA$mNGTON, D. C. 20b55
\\**..*j, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 37' TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-62 ILLIN01S POWER COMPANY.~ET AL.
CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-461
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i in March 1987, an allegation was made in which it was noted that certain pressure isolation testable check valves inside the drywell at Clinton Power Station were not being considered containment isolation valves and appropriately tested as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
This allegation was subsequently investigated by NRC. Region 111 and then reviewed by NRR.
The NRC staff concluded that the following four testable check valves must be considered containment isolation valves:
(1) 1E12-F041CassociatedwithLoop"C"of'the'ResidualHeatRemoval(RHR).
System Low Pressure Coolant injection (LPCI) Mode; (2) 1E22-F005 associated with the High Pressure Core Spray.(HPCS)' System; (3) lE21-F006 associated with the ~ Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System; and (4) 1E51-F066associatedwiththeReactor.CoreIsolationCooling(RCIC)
Sy stem.
4 In response to NRC's determination that Illinois Power should consider the above-noted testable check valves to be containment isolation'_ valves, the
. Illinois Power Company (IP), et al., requested, by letter dated June 30, 1989, an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1.
That amendment request reflected a re-establishment of the containment test boundary to include the applicable testable check valves as containment isolation valves.
In the course of establishing the new test boundary, some test connection / vent / drain valves were added as containment isolation valves and some were deleted. The amendment reflects these changes as well.
2.0 EVALUATION The addition of the four testable check valves to Table 3.6.4-1 as containment isolation valves is a result of a previous NRC determination that these valves snould be considered containment isolation valves and is, therefore, acceptable.
to the staff. The addition of the associated three-fourth-inch' test connection / vent / drain or three-fourth-inch bypass equalization valves to the.
0bhk 000$f)g, PDC
l l
i
.a.
t l
l 2-list of containment isolation valves was previously determined by the NRC t
not to be necessary as these valves would not require any special testing, However, the addition of the test, vent, drain, and bypass valves to Table 3.6.4-1 is a conservative action and therefore, is acceptable to the staff.
The deletion of certain vent and drain valves from Table 3.6.4-1 is based on the re-establishment of the containment test boundary to include the i
four testable check valves. With the addition of the testable check valves as containment isolation valves the noted vent and drain valves are no-longer necessary as containment isolation valves, therefore, their deletion from the table is acceptable, t
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to e requirement with respect to the instal-i lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted 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 8
consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical erclusion 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 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 public will not be endangered by operation.in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted 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, i
Prinicipal Contributor: John B. Hickman Dated:
June 25, 1990 i
i
..