ML20009A883
| ML20009A883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1981 |
| From: | Kalivianakis N COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NJK-81-229, NUDOCS 8107140407 | |
| Download: ML20009A883 (2) | |
Text
'
Commonwealth Edison Quad CitiIs Nuclair Pow:.r Station 22710 206 Avenue Parth Cordova. Illinois 's1242 Telephone 309/.54-2241 g'{
NJ K-81 -229 31)L 1,\\$b\\
'1 n
4-
' \\ o 5 Y' July 1, 1981
.0,\\
3 Mr. Edson G. Ca:e, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Case:
Enclosed please find a listing of those changes, tests, and experiments completed during the month of June 1981, for Quad-Cities Station Units One and Two, DPR-29 and DPR-30. A summary of the safety evaluation is being reported in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59 Thirty-nine copies are provided for your use.
Very truly yours, COMMONWEALTH EnlSON COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCL_AR POWER STATION Mg N. J. Kolivianakis Station Superintendent bb Enclosure cc T. J. Rausch I
O O
'.s /
l[l 8107140407 810701 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
SPECIAL TEST I-5 was completed on June 8, 1981 This test was used to remove deposit samples from selected fuel bundler with an Al 02 3 stone and collect them on a Millipore filter for later analysis.
Summary of the Safety Evaluation The probability of an occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction previously evaluated in the SAR was not increased beccuse all fuel handling was performed in accordance with approved procedures.
The procedures used by General Electric personnel have been reviewed and found acceptable.
The probability of an accident or mal function of a di fferent type than evaluated in the SAR was not created because all fuel maneuvers were standard operations. No activities created accident potentials greater than the P.opped Fuel Bundle Accident considered in the FSAR.
The Margin of Safety as defined in the basis for any Technica' Specification was not reduced because no activities during this test would cause release rates greater than those assumed in the Techn' Speci fication basis.