ML20066B014
| ML20066B014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066B002 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101040255 | |
| Download: ML20066B014 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
~i.
M g(Mety'o UNITED STATES 8
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f,,
j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20666 y.....j SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 76 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMEN 0 MENT NO. 60 TO FACILITY _ nPERATING l.ICENSE NO. NPF-18 COPNONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND_2 DOCKET NOS 50-373 AND 50-374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The licensee installed six cooling units in the drywells of Units 1 and 2 as part of a commitment to the NRC. This was accomplished to restore design redundancy to the drywell-ventilation system. Technical Specification 3/4.8.3.2, " Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices," establishes requirements for the operability of these devices.
The licensee proposes to add to Table 3.8.3.2-1, the new overcurrent protective devices associated with the new cooling units to assure they are properly controlled and tested. Also, to clarify the Bases (3/4.8,3), " Electrical Equipment Protective Devices," it is proposed to identify the electrical devices as medium and high voltage (6.9 kV, 4.16 kV and 480 volt).
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee installed new drywell cooling units to restore design redundancy to the drywell ventilation system. This modification necessitated the addition of primary containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices.
This proposed amendment adds these devices to Table 3.8.3.2-1, so that the
- requirements of Technical Specification 3/4.8.3.2 trill apply.
Technical Specification 3/4.8.3.2, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO),
requires all devices in Table 3.8.3.2-1 be operable in Operational.
Conditions 1, 2, and 3.
Th.e LC0 requires that the affected penetrations be de-energized if one or more'dY the protective devices in the penetrations is inoperable. A test program to select and test at least -10% of each type breaker.is required ay the surveillance requirements.
These new. devices will be added to this program and tested periodically on a rotating basis.
If' failures occur then the sample size is increased to include at least 10% of the inopera,ble type of device.
Each devine is also subject to an inspection and preventive maintenance in accordance with procedures in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
The Bases is also revised to highlight the voltage rating of the protective devices ini:1uded in +.his specification.
I 91o1040259 90121e
{
DR ADOCK 0500 3
I
-_._.____.---__-__--.___--_-_-._-___--_-__.__--___-________a
~
-~
' 1 2
This proposed Technical Specification amendment is an administrative change to add protective devices to reflect the addition of cooling units iato the primary containment and to clarify the Bases by specifying the voltage ratings for the devices.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERAT10H The amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in-10 CFR 20 or.a change to a surveillance requirement.
The staff has determined that these 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on r
such finding.- Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria forcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(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 staft 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 regula-tions,and(3)the-issuanceoftheseamendmentswillnotbeinimicaltothe common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Robert M. Pulsifer Dated:
December 18, 1990 W
g e-
-