ML20099G027
| ML20099G027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099G023 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208140060 | |
| Download: ML20099G027 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ,o[ge n ey% UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOF Y COMMISSION { )# 5 4 WAKHINGTON. D. C. 20%5 ] SAFETY EVALU4T10N BY THE OfflCE OF NUC. LEAR REACTOR REGULAUQH RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.151 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 (Qt{511M[RS POWER COMPANY PA'iSADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 27, 1991, Consumers Power Company (CPC or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to f acility Operating License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant. The amendment request dated September 27, 1991, clarified and supplemented a previous request dated October 20, 1986, as amended April 30, 1987. Consumers Power Company submitted a Technical Specification Change Request on October 20, 1986 which included a correction to Specification 5.2.3.a. The NRC issued Amendment No. 104 to the Palisades License on March 24, 1987 statiiig that the proposed change to Specification 5.2.3.a. would'be the subject of future action. On April 30, 1987, CPC submitted a revision to the October 20, 1986, submittal which included a correction to Specification 5.2.3.a.; hraever, no amendment was issued which included this revision. Since that time, CPC has completed an evaluation of the containment air cooler desigr The results of this evaluation are included in a report (NFtt 9233 papared by American Air Filter entitled, " Investigation of Cook Pei f;rmence Prediction for Containment Air Coolers at the Palisades hucle.r Station," dated October 6, 1989. The results presented in %at report indiuta th+ with a total flow of 5580 gpm and an inlet temperature of 85', t Containment Air Coolers have a design heat removal rate of 230 x, BTV/hr. 2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendment changes the TS by correcting an erroneous statement witii regards to the amount of cooling water flow to the Containment Air Coolers (CACs). Technical Specifcation Section 5.2.3.a currently states that three CACs, each with a cooling water flow of 4875 gpm with v inlet temperature of 75'F, will remove 229 million BTU /hr of heat. t 9200140060 920728 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P PDR
o Based on the results of an evaluation of the CAC design, the licensee proposes that TS Section 5.2.3.a be revised as follows: ...Three units, with a total cooling water flow of 5580 with an inlet temperature of 85'F, will remove ;30 x 10'gpm and 4 BTU /hr of heat." The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by licensee in support of the proposed TS change including the American Air Filter report NESE 923. Based on our review, we find the proposed change to TS Section 5.2.3.a acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulaticns, the Michigan S'cate Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no. comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installc; ion or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amoants, 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 publi: comment on such finding (57 FR 24669) (see also 55 FR 10530). Accordingly, this 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 this 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 compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Principal Contributor: A. Hasciantonio Date: 11y 28,1992 9 g L =}}