ML20028B965
| ML20028B965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A864 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301040199 | |
| Download: ML20028B965 (2) | |
Text
~~
ac UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY col 0 MISSION o
i I,
wasHswoTow. o. c. aoses SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT N0. 77. TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-30 COMONWEALTH EDISON C0MPANY AND d
IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 00AD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 Introduction As a result of events involving coninon cause failures of SDV limit switches and SDV drain valve operability, the NRC staff issued IE Bulletin 80-14 on June 12, 1980.
In addition, the staff sent a letter dated July 7,1980 l
to all operating BWR licensees requesting that they propose Technical Specification changes to provide surveillance requirements for SDV vent and drain valves and LC0/ surveillance requirements on SDV limit switches.
I Model Technical Specifications were enclosed with this letter to provide guidance to licensees for preparation of the requested s:.3mittals.
By letter dated October 14,1980, as supplemented October 22, 1981, Commonwealth Edison Company l
(the licensee) submitted the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications.
Evaluation The enclosed report (TER-C5506-63/65) was prepared for us by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of a technical assistance contract program.
The FRC report provides 1.ts, technical evaluation of thi compliance off ~**~'
~
the licensee's subniittal with'NRC provided criteria.
FRC has concluded that the lice ' sea's response does not meet the explicit requirements of paragraph 3.3-6 and Table 3.3.6-1 of the NRC staff's Model Technical Specifications. However, the FRC report concludes that tech-nical bases are defined on p. 50 of the staff"s " Generic Safety Evaluation ~
Report BWR Scram Discharge System", dated December 1,1980 that permit consideration of this departure from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications. We conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications.
In addition, i.tC has also concluded that the proposed Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications do not meet the Model Technical Specification l
requirements of paragraphs 4.3.1.1 and Table 4.3.1.1-1 for SDV water level l
8301040199'821223 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
~. : -
~
L -
2 high channel functional test requirements. However, the FRC TER concludes that the proposed surveillance requirements for SDV water level high are acceptable, since the licensee is installing a second instrument volume at each unit and the licensee is providing four reactor protection. system level instruments for each of the two instrument volumes, for a total of eight instruments for the RPS. The Model Technical Specifications were developed for plants which have only one instrument volume (four RPS level switches);
therefore, the second instrument volume significantly improves the design and reliability of the SDV. Taking this into account, we conclude that the technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications.
FRC has concluded that the licensee's proposed Technical Specification revisions meet our criteria without the need for further revision.
Based upon our review of the contractor's report of its evaluations, we conclude that the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications satisfy our requirements for surveillance of SDV vent and drain valves and for LCOs and surveillance requirements for SDV limit instrumentation. Con-sequently, we find the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications ac-ceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a. change in ef-fluent 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 the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
Conclusion 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 an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assuran'ce that the health and safety of the public will not be endangeres by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: Decerter 23, 1982
Enclosure:
TER Principal Contributors:
K. T. Eccleston, R. B. Bevan
.-_