ML19341B117
| ML19341B117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1981 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B111 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101300259 | |
| Download: ML19341B117 (7) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY AND
)
IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS & ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-254 (Ouad Cities Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1
)
ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF LICENSE AND GRANT OF EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION I.
The Commonwealth Edison Company, et al (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-29 which authorizes the operation of the Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 at steady state reactor power levels not in excess of 2511 megawatts thermal (rated power). The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located at tt.e licensee's site near Cordova, Illinois.
II.
On February 28, 1978, the Commission granted to the licensee an interim exemption from the requirements of General Design Criterion 50, " Containment Design Basis," of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 61, March 29, 1978). This exemption is related to the demonstrated safety margin of the Mark I containment system to withstand recently identified suppression pool hydrodynamic loads associated with postulated design l-basis loss-of-coolant accidents and primary system transients. Al though there was a reduction in the margin of safety from that called for by General Design Criterion 50, the Commission found that a sufficient margin x st to preclude undue risk to the health and safety of the public would 81 01300F 7590-01 The Comnission's evaluation was documented in the NRC staff's " Mark I Containfent Short-Tenn Program Safety Evaluation Report," NUREG-0408, dated December 1977, which concluded that the BWR facilities with the Mark I con-tainment design could continue to operate without undue risk to the health and safety of the public while a more comprehensive Long-Term Program was being conducted. The purpose of the Long-Term Program was to define design basis (i.e., conservative) loads that are appropriate for the anticipated life (40 years) of each BWR/ Mark I facility, and to restore the original In order intended design safety margins for each Mark I containment system.
to provide unifonn, consistent, and explicable acceptance criteria for the Long-Tem Program, the Summer 1977 Addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code have been used as the basis for defining the intended margin of safety, rather than using the particular version of the ASME Code which was In some instances, applicable to the initial licensing of each facility.
The the allowable stresses are higher under the later edition of the Code.
basis for acceptance criteria is described in the " Mark I Containment Long-Tem Program Safety Evaluation Report," NUREG-0661, dated July 1980.
As a result of our review of the extensive experimental and analytical programs conducted by the Mark I Owners Group, the NRC staff has concluded that the Owners Group's proposed load definition and structural assessment techniques, as set forth in the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," NE00-21888, dated December 1978, and the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide,"
dated October 1979, (subsequently referred to as NEDO-21888 and KEC 3-24583-1, NE S-24583-1) and. as modified in certain details by the staff's Acceptance
__. 7590-01 Criteria, will provide a conservative basis for determining whether any struc-tural or other plant modifications are needed to restore the original intended nargin of safety in the containment design. The staff's Acceptance Criteria are contained in Appendix A to NUREG-0661. The basis for the staff's requirements and conclusions is also described in NUREG-0661.
III.
In letters dated March 12, 1979, each BWR/ Mark I licensee was requested by the NRO to submit a schedule for carrying out an assessment of the need for plant nodifications for each of the licensee's BWR/ Mark I units, based on the Owners Group's proposed generic load definition and assessment techniques, and for the subsequent installation of the plant modifications determined to be needed by such an assessment. In response to our letter, the licensee's letters dated May 11, 1979 and July 2,1980 indicated a commitment to undertake plant-unique assessments based on the Owners Grnup's generic assessment techniques, to modify the plant systems as needed, and also indicated that its schedule for this ef fort would result in a plant shutdown to complete the plant modifications by December 31, 1982.
1 On October 31, 1979, the staff issued an initial version of its acceptance criteria to the affected licensees. These criteria were subsequently revised in February 1980 to reflect acceptable alternative assessment techniques which would enhance the implementation of this program. Throughout the development of these acceptance criteria, the staff has worked closely with the Mark I Owners Group in order to encourage partial plant-unique assessments and modi-I fications to be undertaken.
. 7590-01 The modification schedules submitted in response to the March 12, 1979 letter have subsequently been revised to reflect the development of the acceptance criteria and additional information concerning plant modifications that will In consideration of be needed to demonstrate conformance with those criteria.
the range of completion estimates reflected by all of the affected licensees and the staff's assessment of the nature of the effort involvea in the reas-sessment work and in the design and installation of the needed plant modifica-tions, the staff has concluded '. hat the licensee's proposed completion schedule is both prompt and practicable.
Under the circumstances, the HRC staff has determined that the ifcensee's commitm!nt to undertake the reassessment of suppression pool hydrodynamic loads and to design and complete installation of the plant modifications, if any, 31, 1982 should needed to conform to the generic acceptance criteria by December be confirmed and formalized by Order.
IV.
The Commission hereby extends the exemption from General Design Criterion 50 28, 1978, of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 granted to the licensee on February only for the time necessary to complete the actions required by Section V or Substantial improvements have already been made in the VI of the Order.
margins of safety of the containment systems and will continue to be improved during this period whenever practicable, and, in any event, all needed improve-I nents, if any, must be completed in accordance with the provisions of Section V or VI of 5.his Order.
l l
7590-01 The Commission has determined that good cause exists for the extension of this exemption, that such exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is in the public I
The Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption interest.
will not result in any significant environmental impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5 (d)(4), an environmental impact statement or negative declara-P tion and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection L
with this action.
c V.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commissions regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the license be amended to include the following conditions:
the licensee shall promptly assess the suppression pool hydrodynamic l
1.
loads in accordance with NED0-21888 and NE00-24583-1 and the Acceptance Criteria contained in Appendix A to NUREG-0661.
any plant modifications needed to assure that the facility conforms to 2.
the Acceptance Criteria contained in Appendix A to NUREG-0661 shall be designed and its installation shall be completed not later than December 31, 1982 or, if the plant is shutdown on that date, before the resumption of j
i power thereafter.
VI.
l The licensee or any person whose Interest may be affected by the Order set forth in Section V hereof may request a hearing,within thirty days of the date of pub 11-l cation of this Order in the Federal Register. Any request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear 7590-01 Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Isham, Lincoln & Beale, CRnse-lors at Law, One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60603, at torneys for the licensee.
If a hearing is held concerning such Order, the issues to be considered at the hearing shall be:
whether the licensee should be required to promptly assess the suppression 1.
pool hydrodynamic loads in accordance with the requirements of Section V of this Order; and, 2.
whether the licensee should be required, as set forth in Section V of this Order, to complete the design and installation of plant modifications, if any, needed to assure that the facility conforms to the Acceptance Criteria contained in Appendix A to NUREG-0661.
The Order set forth in Section V hereof will become effective on expiration of the period during which the licensee may request a hearing or, in the event a hearing is held, on the date specified in an order issued following further proceedings on this Order.
VII.
For further details concerning this action, refer to the following documents which are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 or through the Commission's local
. public document room at the Moline Public Library, 504-17th Street, Moline, Illinois.
" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric Topical 1.
Report, NED0 '21888, December 1978.
7590-01 2.
"ha'rk I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide," General Electric Topical Report, NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
3.
" Mark I Containment Long Tem Program Safety Evaluation Report,"
NUREG-0661, July 1980.
4.
Letter from C. Reed, CECO, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, dated May 11, 1979.
5.
Letter from C. Reed, CECO, to D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, dated July 2,1980.
6.
Letter to licensee dated January 13, 1981.
FB,R THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=%
I Darrell G. $senhut, Director Division of Licensing l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Dated: January 13, 1981 Bethesda, Maryland
,_.m
._i_w
,.__y
_