ML20140H740
| ML20140H740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140H727 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706180436 | |
| Download: ML20140H740 (2) | |
Text
_
l p%q
[
[
t UNITED STATES l
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NVCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
l SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO l
FACILITY LICENSE N0. R-95 l
RH0DE ISLAND ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
DOCKET N0. 50-193 j
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
,By letter dated June 6,1997, the Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission (the licensee), requested a change to Technical Specifications (TSs) 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 3.2 (Table 3.1) to correct inconsistencies that were discovered concerning the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center (RINSC) Safety Limits (SL) and the Limiting Safety System Settings (LSSS).
2.0 EVALVATION The present TSs in Section 2.1.1, " Safety Limits in the Forced Convection Mode" have a statement which lists as a safety limit "the true value of l
reactor coolant inlet temperature at power levels up to 2MW shall not exceed 115 F. " Also, the TSs in Section 2.2.1 "LSSS" has an LSSS for inlet temperature which is set at 111 F.
The TSs also have a safety limit for the l
coolant outlet temperature of 125*F and an LSSS of 121 F.
The licensee currently only has an automatic action for the outlet temperature LSSS, which is set to scram at 121 F.
The licensee is proposing to eliminate the TS addressing the inlet temperature safety limit and the LSSS associated with it. The licensee's reasoning for this change is that either an inlet or outlet temperature scram provides sufficient protection to the reactor fuel.
The licensee points out that this is consistent with ANSI /ANS-15.1-1990, wherein either reactor coolant inlet or outlet temperature may be monitored as important process variables.
Also, the licensee believes that the outlet temperature is a better representation of the actual coolant temperature exiting the core and therefore more l
conservative. Additionally the thermal hydraulic analysis (Part B of the Safety Analysis Report dated December 22,1992) shows that with the proposed safety limits for forced convection (power, coolant flew, pool level, and coolant outlet temperature) fuel clad temperature limits will not be exceeded.
The analysis does not evaluate reactor coolant inlet temperature, but rather I
reactor coolant outlet temperature (Part B, Table B of the Safety Analysis i
Report, December 22,1992) coolant flow, and power level.
The staff agrees with the licensee's analysis, and alsc notes that there are alarms for both inlet and outlet reactor coolant temperatures.
The staff finds that removal j
of a safety limit and an LSSS for inlet coolant temperature is acceptable.
~
9706180436 970617 PDR ADOCK 05000193 P
.-- o -
1-l Table 3.1 in TS Section 3.2 has been revised to show an existing scram at the facility which was not included in the TSs.
It is a pool temperature scram which is set to scram at 126*F in the natural convection mode. This is l
consistent with the LSSS of TS Section 2.2.2 which specifies a maximum pool temperature of 126 F.
The staff finds this acceptable.
l 3.0 ENIIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION l
This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the i
installation or use of facility components located within the restricted areas defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for l
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 l
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) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the l
probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated, or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed changes, and (3) 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 the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Theodore S. Michaels Date: June 17, 1997 l
l E
I l