ML20084R641
| ML20084R641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R608 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506090359 | |
| Download: ML20084R641 (2) | |
Text
,
ma
?t UNITED STATES g
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2006H001
\\,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.153 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO.149 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY A!m IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OVAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 l
1.0 JJ!TRODUCTION I
By letter dated April 10, 1995, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed, the licensee), proposed changes to revise the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) flow rate test surveillances to be more consistent with the BWR Standard Technical Specifications (STS) guidelines in format and nomenclature. The proposal also revises the low pressure value at which these systems are tested following a refueling outage or an outage in which work was performed that directly affected system operability to a value consistent with the operability requirements of the systems.
2.0 EVALVATION Quad Cities Technical Specifications (TS) (sections 3.5.C.1 for HPCI and 3.5.E.1 for RCIC) currently require the HPCI and RCIC systems to be operable whenever the reactor pressure is greater than 150 psig and fuel is in the reactor vessel. However, the current TS (4.5.C.3 and 4.5.E.3 for HPCI and RCIC, respectively) also require that the test be accomplished at a system head corresponding to a reactor pressure of 300 psig or greater when steam is being supplied to the turbine at 250 to 325 psig.
The current TS also require that rated flow must be delivered when system head corresponds to reactor pressure of 1150 psig or greater and when steam is supplied to the turbine at 920 to 1005 psig. The BWR STS (NUREG 1433) guidelines do not include a specific value of pressure, but state that the rated flow shall be delivered against a system head corresponding to reactor vessel pressure. Commonwealth Edison Company has identified that this value of 1150 psig is greater than the rated reactor pressure of 1000 psig and that this testing has been associated with accelerated wear on the HPCI and RCIC mechanical components.
9506090359 950530 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
t d
O
- This amendment change will eliminate the stated value for reactor vessel t
pressure of 2 300 psig for low reactor vessel pressure testing and 21150 psig for high reactor vessel pressure testing and, thus, will be consistent with the STS guidelines where the flow rate test shall deliver the raced flow against a system head corresponding to reactor vessel pressure. This amendment would also assure the testing of these turbines in the full range in which they are to be operable by lowering the pressure requirement for the steam being supplied to the turbines from 250 psig to 150 psig.
Both of these changes would still assure that the HPCI and RCIC systems deliver a flow rate of 5000 gpm and 400 gpm, respectively, when tested against a system head corresponding to reactor vessel pressure, when steam is supplied to the turbines at 920 psig to 1005 psig for the high pressure test and 150 psig to 325 psig for the low pressure test.
The 12-hour time limit to perform the test after a refueling outage or an outage in which work was performed that directly affects the system operability was retained from the current TS.
Editorial changes were made on page 3.5/4.5-23 for DPR-29 and page 3.5/4.5-15 for DPR-30 to make them consistent.
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 surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments invalve no significant increase in the amounts, and no l
significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released i
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 (60 FR 21009). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria 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 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: Robert M. Pulsifer Date:
May 30, 1995