ML19350D132
| ML19350D132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350D131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104130471 | |
| Download: ML19350D132 (2) | |
Text
.
S,pacto UNITED STATES y ],, f,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g3 ag W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555
% %. s j/
SAFETY EVALUATI0Tl BYiTHE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-19 AMENDMENT NO. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25 AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICEN'SE NO. DPR-29 AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONUEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IONA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254 AND 50-265 Introduction By letter dated September 15, 1977 we transmitted to Connonwealth Edison Company (CECO) NUREG-0313, " Technical Report on Material Selection and Pro-cessing Guidelines for the BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping".
We recuested that CECO review Dresden Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3 and the Quad Cities Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2 to detennine conformance, and that CECO propose appropriate Technical Specification changes.
By letter of February 3,
\\
1978 CECO' committed to increasing sump flow monitoring frequency from once per day to once per eight hour shift.
By letter of May 22, 1978, CECO proposed Technical Specification changes to require the increased monitoring and recording frequency.
Evaluation The proposal to increase the surveillance frequency for drywell sump flow monitoring and recording to once per eight hour shift will significantly reduce the period of time during which a leak having a leak rate in excess of a limiting condition for operation might go undetected.
The proposed change increases a surveillance requirement, is conservative with respect to the present requirement, and'is acceptable.
Environmental Considerations i
We have determined that these amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that these amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
0413 0NYf
2 Ccnclusion We have concluded based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not irvolve a significant hazards considerations (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be con-ducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: flarch 27, 1981 e
l
.