ML20050D080
| ML20050D080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050D078 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204120052 | |
| Download: ML20050D080 (2) | |
Text
--.
hanog%
~
UNITED STATES 8
E' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.y WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
- ~
. j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
68 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-19 AND AMENDMENT N0. 60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-25 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNTIS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-237 AND 50-249
. Author:
J. D. Hegner. -
I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated Noven$ber 30, 1981 Commonwealth Edison Company (licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 to:
revise the primary containment integrated leak rate test requirements and schedules to conform with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50; modify the associated Limiting Condition for Operation to include the definitions of the nomenclature used and identify specific leakage limitations as required by Appendix J; and modify the surveillance requirements to provide direct references to Appendix J methodology and terminology.
II.
BACKGROUND Beginning in August 1975, the NRC staff requested licensees to review their containment leakage testing programs and the associated Technical Specifications for compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Recognizing at that time that there were already many operating plants and a number more in advanced stages of design or con-struction, we requested licensees to propose design modifications and Technical Specification changes and, as necessary, request exemptions to attain conformance with the regulations. The Commonwealth Edison Company had pre'viously responded to our request by letters dated September 26, 1975, September 9,1976, and April 5,1977.
As part of that response, the licensee requested a number of exemptions to the provisions of Appendix J.
Those requests are under review and are not addressed in this Safety Evaluation.
III.
EVALUATION By letter dated November 30, 1981 the licensee proposed amending the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to modify the primary containment integrated leakage testing requi.rements and schedules to conform with 10 CFR Part 50, Apppendix J requirements.
The proposed changes also provided fo,r direct references and use of Appendix J methodology and tenninology.
k[k 0
P
2 The BWR Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0123, Revision 3, served as the basis in assessing the conformance of the licensee's proposed Technical Specification changes to Appendix J requirements.
The Standard Technical Specifications, pages 3/4 6-2 through 3/4 6-4, pertaining to primary containment leakage testing requirements (and the associated Bases) are recognized by the staff as an acceptable implementation of the applicable requirements of Appendix J.
We have reviewed the licensee's submittal dated November 30, 1981 and find.
the licensee's proposed Technical Specification changes to be consistent with the BWR Standard Technical Specifications.
Therefore, we conclude that the Technical Specification changes pertaining to containment integrated leakage. testing meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, and are acceptable.
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any si~gnificant 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 these amendments.
V.
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 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 cecurity or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: April 1,.1982 '
e e
e