ML20247E557
| ML20247E557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247E537 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907260220 | |
| Download: ML20247E557 (2) | |
Text
-
((
UNITED STATES
([ h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
/4 j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o.,
/g SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-62 CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 ILLINDIS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-461
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 21, 1988 the Illinois Power Company (IP), et al. (the y
licensees) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 3.6.2.7 to delete a limitation on the period of approval for drywell purge and vent system operation. The specific limitation is a footnote which states that the allowed system operation is applicable for the period from initial fuel load to 3 months after completion of the first refueling outage. The system operation allowed by the TS is limited to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per 365 days for pressure control.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee states in their submittal that the limited approval for drywell vent and purge operation was included incorrectly. This limitation was based on an evaluation of both the containment and drywell vent and purge system that was documented in Clinton Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 5 (SSER 5).
SSER 5 provided an evaluation for both the containment and drywell vent and purge systems operation and approved operation through the first refueling outage. SSER 5 also called for the applicant to submit a reevaluation of the need to use the containment purge system during operational modes 1 through 3, before startup after the first refueling outage. SSER 5 stated no requirement for a reevaluation of the drywell vent and purge system and the limited approval was apparently unintentionally included in the TS.
However, an evaluation was performed by the staff for this SER.
A review of the design for CPS indicated that there are no alternate (smaller) pathways available for drywell venting. A review of SSER 5, Chapter 3 indicated that the operability issue for the drywell vent and purge valves under accident conditions was approved and closed out as acceptable. This was based on the implementation of several actions including the installation of mechanical stops limiting the valves to 50 degrees open. Discussions with the licensee regarding the need for operation of the drywell vent and purge valves indicated that operation has been required for pressure control on a limited basis, particularly during reactor startup. The operational history for the drywell vent and purge system is maintained on a running 365 days basis as required by TS. The required operation for the period of April 4, 1988 to April 4, 1989, was 123.3 minutes, demonstrating a need for system operation within the 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> limitation.
8907260220 89072A DR ADOCK 0500046.1 PDC
~.
l f r
l i
l Based on the documented need for drywell pressure control during the first.
operating cycle, and the limited time of operation of the drywell vent and I
purge system currently allowed by TS, the staff considers the deletion of the first cycle limitation on drywell vent and purge system operation to be
. acceptable.
.i l
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
j The amendment relates to changes in the use of facility component located within restricted area of the facility. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in 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 i
exposure. The staff has previously published a proposed finding that the j
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9). Pursu6nt to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or l
environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of 1
the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed change to Technical Specification Section 3.6.2.7 to delete a f
liraitation on the period of approval for drywell purge and vent system operatMn has been determined to be acceptable by the staff.
We have 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, and (2) 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 to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: John B. Hickman, NRR/PDIII-2 Dated: July 24, 1989 I
l 1