ML20072S374
| ML20072S374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072S368 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304070148 | |
| Download: ML20072S374 (2) | |
Text
i i
SAFETY EVALU ATION,
AMENDMENT H0. 13 TO LICENSE HPF-11 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT HO. 1 DOCKET k0. 50-373
+
Introduction By letter dated February 24, 1983, Connonwealth Edison (licensee) requested
- a change to the La Salle County Station Unit No.1 Technical Specifications to revise the minimum carbon dioxide storage tank. level surveillance reouire-ment from 80 percent capacity to 50 percent capacity.
Evaluation National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 12, which we reference in our guidelines, recommends that low pressure carbon dioxide storage tanks need to be refilled, if at any time a loss of more than 10 percent content j
is observed at the liquid level guage, unless the minimum gas requirements are still provided. The licensee's minimum gas reouirement is 40 percent (8,000 lbs.) of the tank capacity for. the single largest hazard protected.
i-The storage capacity of the carbon dioxide tank is 20,000 lbs. The reason for the additional carbon dioxide is for purging the station gener3 tors.
Because the carbon dioxide. storage tank is also used for other than fire extinguishing purposes, the 90 percent refill criteria of NFPA Standard.12 should not be applied to the contents of the whole carbon dioxide storage tank, but only to the 8,000 lbs. of. carbon dioxide needed foi fire extinguishing.
L purposes.
The proposed minimum allowable tank level of 50 percent. capacity:(10,000 lbs.)
provides a 2,000 lb. excess margin of fire extinguishing agent above the.
amount required. Based on this analysis, we find that 'an adequate level of fire protection will be'provided based on the revised Technical Specification.
[
Therefore, we conciude the requested Technical _ Specification revision is.
l acceptable.
t L
Environmental Consideration We have determined that this amendment does not authorize'a change in effluent i
types of total amount nor an increase.in power level and will not result in i
any significant' environmental impact. Having made.this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment. involves action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and, pursuant to.10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental -impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need ~not be prepared in connection with
'the issuance of this amendment.
r30407014e 830401 i
PDR ADOCK 05000373
- l. -
P-PDR
[
. omer>
[
suname >
, on y
! {mc ronu s s om meu oae -
OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY.
. usa m
.W
2.-
t Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that as to the related license amendment; (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences or accidents previously.
considered, does not create the possibility of an accident'of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significent decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideratian; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's i
regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
APR1 1983 f
I r
3 i
i s
1 I
.*a.a.~.......a*.'-
OFFaCE)
...a....~.aa..a.
SuaNAMEh
........ ~............
....................l.....................
. o4rt y unc ronu m oaan nacu ouo '
. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.usam= =
4