ML18057B306: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* Request for Change to the Technical Specifications License DPR-20 For the-reasons hereinafter set forth, it is requested that the Technical Specifications contained in the Facility Operating License DPR-20, Docket 50-255, issued to Consumers Power Company on February 21, 1991, for the Palisades Plant be changed as described in Section I below: I. Changes Consumers Power Company proposes the following change to Specification 5.2.3.a: " ... Three units, with a total cooling water flow of 5580 gpm and with an inlet temperature of 85 ° F, wi 11 remove 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr of heat." II. Discussion Description of Item Consumers Power Company (CPC) 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 stating 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., however, no amendment was issued which included this revision. | * Request for Change to the Technical Specifications License DPR-20 For the-reasons hereinafter set forth, it is requested that the Technical Specifications contained in the Facility Operating License DPR-20, Docket 50-255, issued to Consumers Power Company on February 21, 1991, for the Palisades Plant be changed as described in Section I below: I. Changes Consumers Power Company proposes the following change to Specification 5.2.3.a: " ... Three units, with a total cooling water flow of 5580 gpm and with an inlet temperature of 85 ° F, wi 11 remove 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr of heat." II. Discussion Description of Item Consumers Power Company (CPC) 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 stating 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., however, no amendment was issued which included this revision. | ||
Since that time, CPC has completed an evaluation of the containment air cooler design. The results of this evaluation are included in a report (NESE 923) prepared by American Air Filter entitled, "Investigation of Cooler Performance Prediction for Containment Air Coolers at the Palisades Nuclear Station", dated October 6, 1989. The results presented in that report indicate that with a total flow of 5580 gpm and an inlet temperature of 85°F the three Containment Air Coolers have a design heat removal rate of 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr. III. Analvsis of No Significant Hazards Consideration Consumers Power Company finds that the activities associated with this proposed Technical Specifications change involve no hazards; and accordingly, a no significant hazards determination per 10CFR50.92(c) is justified. | Since that time, CPC has completed an evaluation of the containment air cooler design. The results of this evaluation are included in a report (NESE 923) prepared by American Air Filter entitled, "Investigation of Cooler Performance Prediction for Containment Air Coolers at the Palisades Nuclear Station", dated October 6, 1989. The results presented in that report indicate that with a total flow of 5580 gpm and an inlet temperature of 85°F the three Containment Air Coolers have a design heat removal rate of 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr. III. Analvsis of No Significant Hazards Consideration Consumers Power Company finds that the activities associated with this proposed Technical Specifications change involve no hazards; and accordingly, a no significant hazards determination per 10CFR50.92(c) is justified. | ||
The following evaluation supports the finding that the proposed change would not: | The following evaluation supports the finding that the proposed change would not: | ||
: 1. Involve a significant increase in the possibility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. | : 1. Involve a significant increase in the possibility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. | ||
The proposed technical specification change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. | The proposed technical specification change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. | ||
The proposed change is a correction to the information contained in the FSAR, section 6.3, Table 6-10. These corrections are based on the results of a study performed on the containment air coolers for the purpose of determining the performance characteristics. | The proposed change is a correction to the information contained in the FSAR, section 6.3, Table 6-10. These corrections are based on the results of a study performed on the containment air coolers for the purpose of determining the performance characteristics. | ||
This change has no effect on containment pressure and temperature analysis (FSAR Section 14.18) since the heat removal rate assumed in the analysis in consistent with this technical specification change. Furthermore, this change has no effect on the LOCA analysis (FSAR Section 14.17) since the assumptions made regarding the containment air cooler heat removal rate in the LOCA analysis are still conservative. | This change has no effect on containment pressure and temperature analysis (FSAR Section 14.18) since the heat removal rate assumed in the analysis in consistent with this technical specification change. Furthermore, this change has no effect on the LOCA analysis (FSAR Section 14.17) since the assumptions made regarding the containment air cooler heat removal rate in the LOCA analysis are still conservative. | ||
: 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. | : 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. | ||
The proposed technical specification change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. | The proposed technical specification change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. | ||
Revision as of 20:32, 25 April 2019
| ML18057B306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1991 |
| From: | HOFFMAN D P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18057B305 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9110080308 | |
| Download: ML18057B306 (3) | |
Text
- . .* CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket 50-255
- Request for Change to the Technical Specifications License DPR-20 For the-reasons hereinafter set forth, it is requested that the Technical Specifications contained in the Facility Operating License DPR-20, Docket 50-255, issued to Consumers Power Company on February 21, 1991, for the Palisades Plant be changed as described in Section I below: I. Changes Consumers Power Company proposes the following change to Specification 5.2.3.a: " ... Three units, with a total cooling water flow of 5580 gpm and with an inlet temperature of 85 ° F, wi 11 remove 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr of heat." II. Discussion Description of Item Consumers Power Company (CPC) 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 stating 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., however, no amendment was issued which included this revision.
Since that time, CPC has completed an evaluation of the containment air cooler design. The results of this evaluation are included in a report (NESE 923) prepared by American Air Filter entitled, "Investigation of Cooler Performance Prediction for Containment Air Coolers at the Palisades Nuclear Station", dated October 6, 1989. The results presented in that report indicate that with a total flow of 5580 gpm and an inlet temperature of 85°F the three Containment Air Coolers have a design heat removal rate of 230 x 10 6 BTU/hr. III. Analvsis of No Significant Hazards Consideration Consumers Power Company finds that the activities associated with this proposed Technical Specifications change involve no hazards; and accordingly, a no significant hazards determination per 10CFR50.92(c) is justified.
The following evaluation supports the finding that the proposed change would not:
- 1. Involve a significant increase in the possibility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed technical specification change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change is a correction to the information contained in the FSAR, section 6.3, Table 6-10. These corrections are based on the results of a study performed on the containment air coolers for the purpose of determining the performance characteristics.
This change has no effect on containment pressure and temperature analysis (FSAR Section 14.18) since the heat removal rate assumed in the analysis in consistent with this technical specification change. Furthermore, this change has no effect on the LOCA analysis (FSAR Section 14.17) since the assumptions made regarding the containment air cooler heat removal rate in the LOCA analysis are still conservative.
- 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed technical specification change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change is a correction to the information contained in the FSAR. These corrections are based on the results of a study performed on the containment air coolers for the purpose of determining the performance characteristics.
The plant hardware was not changed and the plant operating conditions were not changed. 3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The margin of safety, as defined by the plant licensing basis is not significantly reduced by the proposed technical specification change. The proposed change is a correction to the information contained in the FSAR. These corrections are based on the results of a study performed on the containment air coolers for the purpose of determining the performance characteristics.
Heat removal capacity from the containment by the containment air coolers has not been changed, thus there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety.
III. Conclusion The Palisades Plant Review Committee has reviewed this Technical Specifications Change Request and has determined that this change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Further, the change involves no significant hazards consideration.
This change has been reviewed by the Nuclear Safety Services Department.
A copy of this Technical Specifications Change Request has been sent to the State of Michigan official designated to receive such Amendments to the Operating License. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the contents of this Technical Specifications Change Request are truthful and complete.
Sworn and subscribed to before me this of 1991. . mlyAAveri, Notar;PUblc (i, Michigan commission 141-:i-