ML20058H387
| ML20058H387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H384 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011150233 | |
| Download: ML20058H387 (2) | |
Text
.- -.-
. -. - - ~
o
'["
Ig UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-j 5
ij WASHINGTON, D C. 20655 4...*/
'4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE'0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT-NO.127 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.- DPR-29 l
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ~
- i AND l
IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY-QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 i
DOCKET NO. 50-254 l
.s
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 31, 1990 Commonwealth Edison' Compa
'(thelicensee)
I proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for und Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
The proposed: change' reflects the use of generically approved fuel type GE 8x8NB by changing the Minimum Critical PowerRatio(MCPR)safetylimitfrom1.07to1.06.
2.0 EVALUATION General Design Criterion 10 requires that the reactor core b'e' designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of nonnal operation, including-the-effects of abnormal operating transients.
In order to avoid fuel damage caused by overheating of the cladding, transient consequences:are limited so that more than-99.9% of the fuel rods.would be expected to avoid boiling transition during a transient event.
Because of this, the staff.has.
required a safety limit stated in terms of a, statistically determined Minimum Critical Power Ratio' (MCPR).
t i
The proposed. safety limit MCPR of 1.06 for GE'8x8NB.f0el was determined using NRC approved methodology discussed in Section 4.3 of-NEDE-24011-P-A-9,
" General Electric Standard Application b Reactor Fuel."'LThe-proposed a
change in the' safety limit MCPR will%tain the appropriate safety margin during normal operation and abnormal operating: transients at the facility and is therefore acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal--
lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area ~as defined in'10 CFR Part 20~or a change to a surveillance. requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant. change in the types, of any effluents that:
MT$b!
P
]
s-9 3
L t
nay be released offsite and that tnere is no significant_ increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria 1
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 assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has-concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that -
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public
- i will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such s
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this. amendment will not be inimical to the cormon-defense and security. or to.the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Leonard N. 01shan, NRR:PDIII-2 Dated:
November 6, 1990 t
j 1
9' 6,...
v y
w,+