ML20236E126
| ML20236E126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E123 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707310240 | |
| Download: ML20236E126 (2) | |
Text
m
>G*
[.,
I
/
'o
'JNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
a wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20666
%...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 25 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 l
i DOCKET NO. STN 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 29 as supplemented by letter dated March 27, 1987, Union Electric Company submitted a request for changes to Technical Specification 3/4.7.5 regarding the ultimate heat sink. The proposed changes would clarify the existing Action Statement to bring it into conformance with the Standard Technical Specifications and add a new Action Statement to account for the plant-specific design of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Cooling Tower.
2.0 EVALUATION a
l The present Action Statement states that with the Ultimate Heat Sink
~
inoperable the licensee has 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in which to restore operable status
)
or be in hot standby within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within
)
the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. However, it is possible to read the Technical Specifications in such a way that as soon as any part of the UHS is declared inoperable, the Essential Service Water System would also have to be declared inoperable with its more restrictive Action Statements of Technical Specification 3.0.3 (Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, and Cold Shutdown within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />).
The UHS cooling tower is sized for 200% of reactor heat dissipation. The cooling tower is divided into four cells with one fan assenbly per cell.
Two of the four cells are associated with one train of the Essential Service i
Water System and the other two cells are associated with the other train.
Only two cells (one train of Essential Service Water) are required for safe shutdown. In the January 29 and March 27, 1987 letters, the licensee proposed an Action Statement for the Technical Specifications which would delineate this plant-specific design. The prcposed Action Statement would allow one UHS Cooling Tower Train to be inoperable for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before the plant would be required to shut down. This change would permit one train of the UHS (and the associated train of ESW) to be inoperable without Q73102408707pj p
ADOCM 050004s3 PDR
j \\
declaring the entire UHS inoperable. The Action Statement would be in conformance with other redundant system Action Statements (i.e., Essential i
Service Water, Component Cooling Diesel Generators, etc.) when one train is declared inoperable. Thus, because of the unique design of the Callaway UHS cooling towers, the staff finds the proposed Action Statement for one inoperable Cooling Tower Train acceptable.
The March 27, 1987 letter, further clarified the amendment request. The l
licensee proposed an Action Statement for an inoperable UHS resulting from I
water level or temperature which is in conformance with the Standard Technical j
Specification for UHS and Technical Specification 3.0.3.
This makes clear waterlevel,causeswhickerabilityisexcessiveUHStemperatureorinadequate that if the cause of ino affect the entire UHS, the time period associated with loss of both trains (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to Hot Standby, 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> to Cold Shutdown) l will apply.' This clarification does not affect the notice of the proposed i
amendment as noticed. The staff finds this change acceptable.
Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to the Action Statement in Technical Specification LCO 3.7.5 as delineated in the March 27, 1987 i
letter acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation 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 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 Consiission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criterie for cate-gorical 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.
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 p(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with theublic will not be i
and Comission'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.
j Principal Contributors:
R. Giardina, SPLB T. Alexion, PDIII-3 j
Dated: 07/21 /87 e
l
_