ML20245D559
| ML20245D559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D558 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905010048 | |
| Download: ML20245D559 (2) | |
Text
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
y e.uog 8
jo UNITED STATES g
[
.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- p.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
< ~ *
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY.THE.0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT.NO. 22 To FACILITY OPERATING-LICENSE NO. NPF-62 CLINTON POWER STATION.. UNIT.NO. 1 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-461
4.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 26, 1989, the Illinois Power Company (IP), et al. (the licensees) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1.
The prcposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 4.4.1.1.3.d. to correct an error in a surveillance requirement for single loop operation. The current surveillance requirement directs that while in single loop operation, a minimum core flow must be verified when thermal power is within the unrestricted zone of Figure 3.4.1.1-1.
The core flow should be verified when thermal power is within the restricted rather than unrestricted zone. The associated LCO action statement (ACTION "d") requires that when core flow is less than the required minimum and thermal power is within the restricted zone that either the thermal pcwer e st be reduced to the unrestricted zone or core flow must be increased above the re. quired minimum. This action statement conflicts with the correct surveillance requirement and would agree with the proposed revision.
2.0 EVALUATION A review of the current version of the Technical Specifications governing Single Loop Operation (SLO) indicates a discrepancy between the action staterrents and the' surveillance requirements for that condition. Specifically, action statement "d" states:
"Withoneortworeactorcoolantrecirculap%,andTHERMALPOWERwithin ion loops in operation, and total core flow less than or eoual to (39) the restricted zone of Figure 3.4.1.1-1, within 15 minutes initiate ofFigure3.4.1.1-1,orincreasecoreflowtopreaterthan(39)j%within corrective action to reduce THERMAL POWER to within the unrestr cted zone 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />."
(emphasisadded)
However, surveillance requirement 4.4.1.1.3 states in part:
"With one reactor system recirculation loop not in operation, at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> verify that:
Coreflowisgreaterthan(39)#% when THERMAL POWER is within the d.
unrestricted zone of Figure 3.4.4.1.1-1."
(emphasisadded) 8905010048 89o420 PDR ADOCK 05000461 P
i e.
l These statements clearly are in. conflict. The licensee has stated that a j
i l
review of the technical specifications of other facilities and discussions with General Eiectric have confirmed that the use of the word " unrestricted" in the surveillance, rather than " restricted", is an error.
A review of the analysis provided by the licensee on October 7,1986 to l
justify SLO and the Safety Evaluation Report of that analysis was conducted.
j l
Clearly the region of concern for SLO is the restricted zone due to instabilities which may occur during conditions of high power and low flow.
The intent of this portion of the SLO technical specifications was to ensure that sufficient core flow was maintained when power levels were high or that power levels were sufficiently reduced under conditions of low core flow.
Therefore, the staff finds the proposed revision of the surveillance requirement to be acceptable.
l
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves a change in a surveillance requirement. 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
The amendment only involves a change in surveillance requirements for the facility. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issudnce of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Section 4.4.1.1.3.d., in order to monitor for conditions of low core flow at high power, is acceptable since it corrects the criteria to monitor the area of concern.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
-(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety (2) such activities of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and 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 to the public.
Principal Contributor:
John B. Hickman, NRR/PDIII-2 Dated:
April 20,.1989
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _