ML19325E484
| ML19325E484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325E483 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911070219 | |
| Download: ML19325E484 (2) | |
Text
_
/a...r\\
UNITED STATES
,l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
{
f nAsmoToN, D. C. M48
\\*...*/
l L
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR.Rt.GULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 52 TO FACILITY.0PERATING LICEWSE NO. NPF-18 i
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
]
LASALLE COUNTY STATION. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50 374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 2, 1988 January ll,1989 and May 17,198h,and supplenented by letters datedCommonwealth l
i requested an anendment to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License NPF-18 for LaSalle County Station Unit 2.
The amendment reflects new locations of breakers for the Residual Heat Removal Shutdown Cooling Suction Isolation Valves, deletes manufacturer part number references because of changes to the part numbers and corrects typographical errors. The May 17, 1989 letterexplaInedthat the changes that were proposed, but not discussed, in the original submittai were to correct typographical errors. The clarification did not alter the changes noticed'in the Federal Register on February 22, 1989, or affect the staff's initial no significant nazarcs determination.
2.0 EVALUAT!p Cooling Isolation Valve (2E12-F009)y of the Residual Heat Removal Shutdown In oroer to increase the reliabilit at LaSalle County Station Unit 2, the licensee has performed a modification of the system by replacing the Limotorque motor operator with a larger operator. The installation of the new larger operator required the installation of larger capacity breakers than were 3
previously installed (both for normal and emergency feed). The larger
~,
capacity breakers would not fit into the compartments occupied by the original breakers. This necessitated the relocation of the larger breakers.
This was accomplished by installing them in larger compartments within the Motor Control Centers in which the originals were installed. The original breaker locations were MCC 236Y-1 (Compartment 05) and MCC 23SX-1 (Compart-ment C2) for the normal and emergency feeds resp (Compartment C2/C3).
ectively. The new locations are MCC 236Y-1 (Compartment B2) and MCC 235X-1 This proposed Technical Specification amendment is an administrative change intended to reflect the revised breaker compartment location of the new breakers.
The proposed Technical Specification amendment also deletes references to manufacturer part numbers for the 480 VAC (Molded Case) Circuit Breakers in Table 3.8.3.2-1 because of changes being made to the part numbers periodically by the manuf acturer. The parts themselves are unchanged, however, with respect to their form, fit, and function.
This change does not in any way compromise or change the basic function of the equipment bbb74 C
P PDC
2-j' t
' affected and does not change the intent of the Technical Specifications j
as defined in the bases.
In addition, the proposed Technical Specification amendeent also corrects two typogrephical errors in Table 3.8.3.2-1 l
regarding the designation of which breaker is the backup for each of the two primary containment ventilation supply fans (2A and 28). The current i
Technical Specifications indicate that supply fan 2B has a backup supply l
L through MCC 235X-2 (Compartment AA4) and supply fan 2A has a backup supply throughMCC236X-2(CompartmentAA4).
In actuality, these are reversed j
with supply fan 2B having a backup supply through MCC 236X-2 and supply a
fan 2A having a backup supply through MCC 236X-2. These proposed l
Technical Specification amendments are administrative changes intended to t
simplify the Technical Specifications and to reflect actual plant design, and are acceptable.
I
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the installation and use of a facility
[
component located within the restricted area as 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 l
that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in i
l indivioual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission l
has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no ublic coment on l
such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the ali ibility criteria l
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9. This amendment also involves changes in recordkee)ing, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, witi respect to taese items, the amendments meet the elig(ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth inPursuant to 10 CF!
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:
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regula-l tions and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the i
l common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
P. Shemanski R. Lanksbury L. Kokajko Dated: October 25, 1989 P
.v-r-v-r
-,w
,-_-%+-
..-p.-g.
--,m..
m
-