ML20044E150
| ML20044E150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044E148 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305240014 | |
| Download: ML20044E150 (4) | |
Text
/
'o UNITED STATES
[ 3,c [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i"
- 4
'E WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 1%e g% /
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 141 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO.136 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLINDIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 30, 1991, Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) proposed that the existing license conditions on fire protection be replaced with the standard condition noted in Generic letter (GL) 86-10 and that the existing Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.12/4.12, " Fire Protection Systems" be deleted for Quad Cities Station, Units I and 2.
Two enclosures, the proposed Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revision and the fire protec-tion implementing procedure, were inadvertently omitted from the September 30, 1991, letter and were sent by letter dated November 5, 1991.
By letter dated October 2, 1991, the licensee proposed many changes to Section 6.0,
" Administrative Controls." One of the changes deletes the fire brigade manning requirements from TS Section 6.1.C.
By letter dated August 29, 1991, the licensee proposed that TS Section 3.11/4.11, "High Energy Piping Integrity _
(Outside Containment)" be deleted.
-~
2.0 BACKGROUND
Following the fire at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant on March 22, 1975, the Commission undertook a number of actions to ensure that improvements were implemented in the Fire Protection Programs for all power reactor facilities.
Because of the extensive modification of Fire Protection Programs and the number of open issues resulting from staff evaluations, a number of revisions and alterations occurred in these programs over the years. Consequently, licensees were requested by GL 86-10 to incorporate the final NRC approved Fire Protection Program into their FSARs.
In this manner, the Fire Protection Program -- including the systems, the administrative and technical controls, the organization, and other plant features associated with fire protection --
would have a status consistent with that of other plant features described in the FSAR.
In addition, the Commission concluded that a standard license condition, requiring compliance with the provisions of the Fire Protection Program as described in the FSAR, should be used to ensure uniform enforcement 9305240014 930513 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
. ~-
=_
l
- f i
of fire protection requirements.
Finally, the Commission stated that with the -
requested actions, licensees' may request an amendment to delete the fire protection TS that would now be unnecessary.
1 The licensees for the Callaway and Wolf Creek plants submitted lead-plant propcsals to remove fire protection requirements'from their TS.
This action was an industry effort to obtain NRC guidance on an acceptable format for license amendment requests to remove fire protection requirements'from the TS.
j Section 3.11/4.11 was placed in the Technical Specifications on March-8,1976,.
by Amendments 24 (Unit 1) and 23 (Unit 2). They were intended to remain in-effect until the completion of modifications which would acceptably mitigate i
the consequences of high energy 1ine breaks outside containment.
l i
3.0 EVALUATION l
Generic Letter 86-10 recommended the removal of fire protection requirements from the TS. Although a comprehensive Fire Protection' Program is essential to 6
c plant safety, the basis for this recommendation is that many details of this
-[
program that are currently addressed in the TS can be modified without affecting nuclear safety. Such modifications can be made provided that there are suitable administrative controls over these changes. These details,-that are presently included in TS and which are removed by this amendment, do not constitute performance requirements necessary to ensure safe operation of the i
facility and, therefore, do not warrant being included in TS.
At the same
~
time, suitable administrative controls ensure that there will be careful review and analysis by :ompetent individuals of any changes in the Fire; Protection Program including those technical and administrative requireme~nts t
removed from the TS-to ensure that nuclear. safety is-not adversely affected.
These controls include:
(1) the TS administrative controls that are applicable to the Fire Protection Program, (2) the license condition on implementation of, and subsequent changes to, the fire Protection Program, and i
(3) the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria for evaluating changes to the' Fire' Protection Program as described in the FSAR.
)
The TS changes proposed by the licensee are in accordance with the guidance l
provided by GL 88-12, as addressed in the items below.
]
(1) Specification 3.12 and 4.12, fire suppression systems, their asso,iated j
Surveillance Requirements, and Bases (including fire barriers and fire detection instrumentation, and their associated Surveillance Requirements and i
Bases) were removed.
[
(2) The portion of Specification 6.1.C dealing with fire brigade staffing requirements was removed. _ Other administrative technical specifications were approved as part of Amst.dment Nos. 135 and 131 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, on July 24, 1992.
i a
I t
t
=.
. The licensee proposed to change license condition 3.F to read as follows:
Commonwealth Edison Company shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for the facility and as approved in the Safety Evaluation Reports dated July 27, 1979 with supplements dated November 5,1980 and February 12, 1981; December 30, 1982; December 1,1987 with supplement dated April 20, 1988; December 11, 1987 with supplement dated July 21, 1988; and February 25, 1991, subject to the following provision:
The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
As required by GL 86-10, the licensee confirmed that the NRC approved Fire Protection Program has been incorporated into the FSAR. Also, the licensee i
has proposed that the existing licensing conditions on the Fire Protection Program be replaced with the standard condition noted above in accordance with GL 86-10.
Also, GL 88-12 requested that any specifications related to the capability for safe shutdown following a fire are to be retained in the TS.
In the original submittal the licensee stated that Quad Cities, Units I and 2, TS do not contain requirements concerning the capability for safe shutdown following a fire. However, after some discursion with the staff, by letter dated March 23, 1993, the licensee proposed to submit the TS for the safe shutdown makeup pump as part of the ongoing Technical Specification Upgrade Program.
The staff finds the licensee's proposal to be acceptable.
On the bases of its review of the above items, the staff concludes that the I
licensee has met the guidance of GL 88-12 and GL 86-10. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
t The proposed change in the August 29, 1991, submittal deletes Section 3.11/4.11. Modifications were completed in 1979 which would acceptably mitigate the consequences of high energy line breaks outside containment and eliminate the need for Section 3.11/4.11. Therefore, the staff also finds this proposed change acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility compor.ent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no signifi-cant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant i
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public
l I
-4_
comment on such finding (57 FR 37561). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental. impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
On the considerations discussed above, the staff concludes that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Patel Date:
May 13, 1993 i
I V
P