ML20082S641
| ML20082S641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082S640 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312140236 | |
| Download: ML20082S641 (2) | |
Text
@ atov UNITED STATES p
94 y'f^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ( g) e,g( g
,,.p {
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k %%/
e...+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 79 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-19 AND AMENDMENT NO. 70 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25 COMMONWEALTH EDISON C0f1PANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET N0s.
50-237 AND 50-249
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During the inspection period May 9 - June 5, 1981, as reported in an Inspection Report for Dresden Units 2 and 3 dated July 16, 1981, the NRC's resident inspectors noted that the licensee fulfilled the re-quirement of Technical Specification 4.3.C.1, which states that "[a]fter each refueling outage and prior to operation with reactor pressure above 800 psig, all control rods shall be subject to scran time tests from the fully withdrawn position", by performing the testing with the reactor depressurized.
It was the inspectors' opinion thst the wording of 4.3.C.1 would be better interpreted to mean that the tests should be performed above 800 psig but before power operation.
Following a review, the staff proposed that the test should be conducted while the reactor pressure is greater than 800 psig and prior to exceeding 950 psig.
It was also agreed that scram time tests would be conducted prior to exceeding 30% of the reactor licensed power following a refueling outage.
In a letter dated May 2, 1983 the licensee proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes to clarify this procedure.
In the same submittal the licensee also requested TS changes that allowed Control Rod Drive (CRD) pumps to be isolated only during single rod scram testing. This request was based on a proposed purchase of equipment that would allow multiple sccan testing; e.g. during any reactor scram.
It is the licensee's position that during full core testing there is insufficient charging system capacity to bias scram insertion times and that the current BWR Standard Technical Specifications reflect this distinction.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and
~
Opportunity for Hearing related the requested action was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1983 (48 FR 49579).
No request for hearing was received and no comments were received.
8312140236 831212 PDR ADOCK 05000237 P
..- o
. -. 2.0 EVALUATION Based on an analysis of the proposed procedures for scram time testing following a refueling outage, the staff has deternined that such testing should be conducted with the reactor pressure above 800 psig but before the pressure exceeds 950 psig. The tests should also be performed prior to exceeding 30% of the reactor licensed power. The changes proposed by the licensee reflect these staff determinations and are, therefore, acceptable.
The staff also agrees, after a technical review and an examination of the BWR Standard Technical Specifications, that the request to have the CRD pumps isolated only during single rod scram testing meets staff criteria and is, therefore, also acceptable.
Thus, the staff finds that the licensee's proposal to improve the wording of Technical Specification Sections 4.3.C.1 and:4.3.C.2 for Dresden Units 2 and 3 to reflect the staff's position, as stated above, is acceptable.
3.0' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION The staff has determined that the anendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in cry significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, the staff further concludes 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.
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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and-(2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cor. mission's regulations and the issuance of these amendnents will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT R. A. Gilbert prepared this Safety Evaluation Dated: December 12, 1983 7
-