ML20059M454
| ML20059M454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059M453 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010040192 | |
| Download: ML20059M454 (3) | |
Text
............ -. - -...........
.. f*7vq\\,
.g UNITED STATES j
m P' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
g j.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
k l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
48 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-62 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
CLINTON POWEx STATION UNIT NO. 1 q
DOCKET NO. 50-461
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By application for amendment dated February 5,1988, Illinois Power Company ~
-i reouested a revision to the Technical Specification of operating license NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station. The proposed change revises Tables-3.3.2-1 and 3.3.3-1 to more accurately reflect the divisional assignments 1
and the logic arrangements of the reactor water level and high drywell pressure instrumentation listed under Items 1.c and 1.f of Table 3.3.2-1 and Items-C.1.a. C.1.b and C.I.c of Table 3.3.3-1.
This evaluation encompasses the referenced changes as applicable to Secticos.3.3.2-1 and 1
3.3.3-1 of the Clinton Power Station Technical Specifications.
2.0 EVALUATION The trip function affected by the proposed change provides an isolation i
trip signal to the Containment Reactor Vessel Isolation Control'$ystem (CRVICS) instrumentation and also provides an Emergency. Core Cooling System j
(ECCS) actuation trip. The Divisions 3 and 4 instrumentation-associated with the proposed change provides signals-to the High Pressure Core Spray-System (HPCS). _ Although the HPCS is generally considered a Division 3 System, the high drywell pressure and reactor. water level instrumentation inputs to the HPCS initiation signal are both Divisions 3 and 4.
The change bythelicenseerevisesthedivisionalassignmentto: read,"(HPCS-NSPS Division III and IV)" for Items 1.c and 1.f on Table 3.3.2-1.
Table 3.3.3-1 is modified-in a similar. manner with the: addition of Note "g" which indicates that the' instrumentation ~for HPCS is associated with two divisions. The staff review of the divisional assignments referenced in the proposed change agrees with the logic configuration referenced by the licensee and is found to be acceptable.
The purpose of the second change of this amendment is to clarify the one-out-of-two taken'twice logic arrangement and the Minimum Operable Channels Per Trip System requirements of the-reactor water level and high drywell pressure channels inputs to the HPCS and CRVICS. These changes clarify the trip system boundary for the four reactor water level and high -
drywell pressure inputs to the HPCS (CRVICS) as shown in Figure 1.
The
~
9010040192 900925 PDR ADOCK 05000461l P
PNV 1
i change proposed by the licensee involves adding notes "m": and "n" to Table 3.3.2.1 and notes "e" and "f" to Table 3.3.3-1.
These notes ensure that the corresponding action statements are implemented properly when one or more channels are declared inoperable.
The staff reviewed the proposal and determined that defining the trip system as shown on the licensees' submittal-is acceptable.
MioH DRYWE LL tR ESSUME -
DIV4
~
MioH DRYWE LL -
- 3 PM ES8URE DIV4 Mioh ORYWELL
""Ef4
' TRIP fWG)ON j
HloH DRYWE LL V4 HPCE ElP W5TEIA mmATiou RE Actor Low
. siowAL i
WATER LEVEL DIV4 RE ACTOR LOW j
WATER LEVEL REA LOW
- WATER LEVEL oiva.
f RE ACTOR LOW WATER LEVEL F L 0t2 I l' oive
\\
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-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 i
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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.and there has been no public coment on'such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental v
.4 3
impact statement or environmental assessment need te prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment,
4.0 CONCLUSION
r 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 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.
Prinicipal Contributor:
C. Doutt, SICB/ DST Dated: September 25, 1990 b
I i
T t
l t
i 4 '
I.
l l
.t
.