ML20044H386
| ML20044H386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044H383 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-91-09, GL-91-9, NUDOCS 9306080293 | |
| Download: ML20044H386 (2) | |
Text
-
ga at%
.7 4
UNITED STATES
[,
'T j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
";f
,f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001
%,.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OVAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS I AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter of February 26, 1993, Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco, the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change modifies the requirements for performing a channel functional test of the Reactor Protection System Electrical Protective Assemblies (RPS-EPA units) that are currently specified with a 6-month surveillance interval.
Guidance on this proposed change was provided to all boiling-water reactor (BWR) licensees by Generic Letter 91-09, " Modification of Surveillance Interval for the Electrical Protective Assemblies in Power Supplies for the Reactor Protection System," dated June 27, 1991.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed to modify the 6-month surveillance interval for performing channel functional tests of RPS-EPAs units as specified in Technical Specification (TS) 4.9.F.1.a to state that tney are to be performed l
"each time the plant is in COLD SHUTDOWN for a period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, unless performed in the previous 6 months." This change is consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 91-09.
The Niagara Mowhawk Power Corporation provided an analysis in a proposal submitted on December 15, 1988, that calculated the safety risks and benefits of this TS change.
The staff reviewed and concurred with the conclusions of this analysis, that this TS change will produce a net safety benefit.
Because the EPAs for all BWRs are primarily the same, the staff finds that this analysis applies generically to all BWRs.
In addition, it is the staff's qualitative judgement that the proposed increase in the surveillance interval is not safety significant because of the diverse protection that exists, the number of failures that have to occur to have an a:. verse impact on safety, and i
the potential for detecting a degraded condition of the RPS through on-line 9306080293 930528 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
pop
4 -
' testing. Therefore, the staff finds that the licensee's proposed TS change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a surveillance requirement.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant 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 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 comment on such finding (58 FR 16855). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for cetegorical 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
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above,.
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: Chandu P. Patel Date: May 28, 1993 A
e i
j