ML20009B148
| ML20009B148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009B141 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107140872 | |
| Download: ML20009B148 (3) | |
Text
?
, s.m KN.
UNITED STATES
+*
,1,
[,
- .]' h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20666 5
.E
/}
c SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RMULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-2__
AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-l_9_
AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO FACILITY OPEPATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25, AMENDMENT NO. 72 T0' FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29, AND AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY SiU IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DRESDEN STATION UNIT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 QUAD CITIES STATION UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-10, 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, 50-265 l
I.
INTRODUCTION 30,1980 (Reference 1), Commonwealth Edison Company By letter dated May (CECO, the licensee) proposed amendments to Appendix A. Technical Specifica-i tions for Operating License Nos. DPR-2, DPR-19 DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30 for Dresden Units 1, 2, and 3 and Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 respectively.
The licensee's proposed change would provide further clarification of the term operable as it applies to the single failure criterion for safety systems.
II.
EVALUATION _
A.
Definition - Operable Tne NRC staff requested (Referend 2) tiia licensee to revise the definition A system, subsystem, train, component or device shall of operable as follows.
be operable when it is capable of performing its specified function (s).
Implicit in this definition shall be the assumption that all necessary attendant instrumentation, controls, normal and emergency electrical power sources, cooling or seal water, lubrication or other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system, subsystem, train, component or device to perform its function (s) are also capable of performing their related support function (s).
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed revision of their definition of f
operable and find it to be identical with the guidance furnished (Reference 2).
Therefore, this change is acceptable.
l 8107140872 810625 l
PDR ADOCK 05000010 P
2 B.
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) - General The NRC staff also requested (Reference 2) the licensee to incorporate general LCOs concerning operability into their. technical specifications.
1.COs are specified for each related system in the plants, and with few exceptions, they address single outages of components, trains or subsystems.
For any particular system, the LCO does not address multiple outages of redundant components, nor does it address the effects of outages of any support system - such as electrical power or cooling water.
This is because of the large number of combinations of these types of outages that are possibl e.
Therefore, the NRC staff's letter (Reference 2) requested the licensee to incorporate general LCOs to assure that no set of equipment outages would be allowed to persist that would result in the facilities being in an unprotected condition. One of the general LCOs specifies the action to be taken for circumstances in excess of those addressed in a specific system specification. The second general LC0 addresses the situation for which a system would be declared inoperable solely because its normal or emergency power source is inoperable. Sample specifications were provided in the NRC staff's request.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed addition of general LCOs and determined that they are consistent with the guidance furnished (Reference 2).
Therefore. this change is acceptable.
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION 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 standpcint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative decisration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
1 IV.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the i
probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (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 conducted 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.
4
, - - - -. ---.. - ~
- a.,. ~,,
REFERENCES 1.
Commonwealth Edison Company letter (W.F. Naughton) to Director of Nut. lear Reactor Regulation (H.R. Denton) dated May 30, 1980.
2.
NRC letter (P.G. Eisenhut) to All Power Reactor. Licensees dated April 10,1980.
3.
NRC letter (R.A. Clark) to Arkansas Power ar,d Light Company (W. Cavanaugh, III) dated March 3,1981.
l l
l l
l l
l I
4
_