ML20094M260
| ML20094M260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094M251 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408150597 | |
| Download: ML20094M260 (4) | |
Text
,
_ _ _ ~ _ _
f UNITED STATES.
3}7 v
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHING TON. D. C. 20655
%.,.,c3 [
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
-SUPPORTING AMENDMENT:NO. 90' TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS % E ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES. STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-254
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated February 21, February 28 and May 8,1984 Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco, the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Quad Cities Unit 1 (See References 1, 2, 3).
These changes would (1) incorporate new MAPLHGR curves for new barrier fuel of the same nuclear type as non-barrier fuel already in the core, and approve MAPLHGR curves for assembly average burnup to 45,000 MWD /ST for certain' fuel types ' contained in the core during upcoming operating Cycle 8; (2) change the calibration and functional test frequencies for certain specific instrumentation that is being replaced with analog trip systems;
\\
and (3) incorporate appropriate TSs for operation with the newly modified scram discharge system.
1 i
2.0 EVALUATION i
2.1 MAPLHGR Limits l
The reference document containing the ECCS analysis for Quad Cities Units 1
.and 2 (as well as Dresden Units 2 and 3) has previously been approved by the NRC staff and continues to be the basis for MAPLHGR limits for all fuel I
types used in these units (Reference 4). This reference document has been updated as appropriate for other fuel types-by issuance of Errata and Addenda to Reference 4.
Barrier fuel type BP8DRB283H is to be used in the 4
core during the upcoming operating cycle, and is of the same nuclear design l.
as the non-barrier fuel type P80RB282H, which has already been approved for and used in Quad Cities Units. Since the two fuel types are of the same nuclear design, the MAPLHGR curve for the already-approved fuel type P80RB282H applies also to the barrier fuel, as documented by General 3
Electric.(GE) in the Errata and Addenda No.12 to Reference 4, and the l
licensee's proposal to incorporate this into their TSs is acceptable.
. The application (Reference 1) also contains a request to approve an extension of MAPLHGR limits to assembly average burnup of 45,000 MWD /ST for two~ fuel types already in the core.
By Errata and Addeiida Nos. 11 and 12 to Reference 4, the licensee supports an extension to MAPLHGR curves from 40,000 to 45,000 MWD /ST for fuel types P80RB265H and " Barrier LTA."
These 8408150597 840802 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
a 2-limits were generated by method previously approved and having general capplicability for MAPLHGR-limit determination (Reference 5).
In response to NRC staff concerns-that the possible effects of enhanced fission gas release were not adequately considered in the fuel performance model, GE requested that-credit for approved but unapplied ECCS. evaluation model changes and calculated peak cladding _ temperature margin be used to avoid RAPLHGR penalties at high burnups (References 6 and 7). This proposal was fcund acceptable (Reference 8) provided that certain plant-specific conditions were met. As documented in the licensee's. application', _
(Reference 1), the GE-produced supporting reference document demonstrates the' applicability to Quad Cities Unit 1 operating Cycle 8.
Further, the staff has investigated potential changes in the radiological consequences of the fuel handling accident (the design basis accident) due to the j '
possible involvement of extended burnup (as high as 45,000 mwd /MT) fuel in the accident scenario, and concludes that new radiological consequences-would not be in excess of the SRP guideline value of 75 Rem to the thyroid.
On the basis' of the foregoing considerations, the extended MAPLHGR limits r
for the fuel: types cited are acceptable.
d' 1
2.2 Analog Trip Instrumentation Surveillance Frequency
[-_
Certain equipment is being replaced to satisfy the requirement of 10 CFR 50.49 regarding environmental qualification of electrical equipment-important to safety.
In associating with these changes, several existing instruments will be converted into analog. trip systems; these are:
Reactor Low Water Level Instrument, 1-263-57A and B and 1-263-58A and B Reactor Water High Level Instrument, 1-263-73A and B HPCI High Steam Floor Instrument, 1-2389A thru D HPCI Steam Line Low Pressure Instrument,1-2352 and 1-2353 The analog trip systems consist of an analog sensor and transmitter, and a trip unit arrangement which ultimately actuates a trip relay. The frequency of calibrotion and functional testing for instrument 1 cops of th:
4 analog trip system has been established in Reference 9, an NRC-approved reference document. With the currently installed one-out-of-two, taken twice logic, the prescribed calibration / functional test frequency is once n
per month. The proper calibration / functional test frequency for the i
respective transmitters, however., is once per operating cycle. The TS changes proposed in Reference 2 would require-the channel calibration to be performed at the transmitter at a frequency of once per operating cycle.
Since this is the calibration frequency recommended in the NRC-approved GE Topical Report, NED0-21617-A.(Reference 9), and the proposal is to conform-
-the surveillance requirements to the recommended and NRC-approved period,
_..the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
J T
4 1
-.,,,.,-,.~.,r
,.-,....m,-
r,.,,
,y,,
y-..,
~~-,_,-.-,e re y v,-,-,
..r.
~
3 1
5.'
I i
3-i
~2.3 Scram' Discharge System.
~ A Generic Safety Evaluation-for the rrodified scram discharge system, issued
. December 10, 1980, endorsed the criteria set forth by the BWR Owners-I Subgroup to meet the concerns arising from the Browns Ferry incomplete
^
-scram event of July 1980. -By the NRC Confirmatory Order of June 24, 1982, n
l the licensee's commitment.to modify its scram discharge system in response L
to these concerns was confirmed (Reference 10). Also, model Technical Specifications were forwarded to the licensee as guidance for revising the i'
TS for operation with the newly modified scram discharge system.
Following L
a' period of discussion with the licensee regarding the application of the s
t j
model Technical Specifications to the unit-specific TS for ' Quad Cities.
L Units 1 and 2, the licensee by letter dated February 28, 1984 proposed TSs i'.
for the newly modified scram discharge system for Unit 1.
The.TS changes proposed in the licensee's submittal are fully responsive to the concerns 4
addressed in the Generic Safety Evaluation on Scram Discharge Systems, and are in keeping with the guidance provided in the model Technical 2
Specifications, and-are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility 3.
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
i-The staff h'as determined that the amendment involves 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 i
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Consnission j
has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(gibility criteria i
9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment i
need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
S i
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
1 (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public L
Twill not be endangered by operation.in the proposed manner, and (2) such
-activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the-issuance of.this amendment will not be inimical to the common l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
P,. B. Bevan b
Dated:
August 2,1984 i
F E
E -- !.
- ~. -.
-.,*.v
..m,-.--eew, r-,
, -r.---,-r_.,r.,
,,.,,-,r.,.m-,-,-ww-m,c.#,+,mn,,p ywyy-
a.
REFERENCES
- 1) Letter,R.Rybak(CECO)toH.Denton(NRC),datedFebruary 21, 1984
- 2) Letter, R. Rybak (CECO) to H. Denton (NRC), dated May 8, 1984.
~
-3) Letter, R. Rybak (CECO) to H. Denton (HRC), dated February 28, 1984
- 4) GE Topical Report, NED0-24146-A, " Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Report for Dresden Units 2,3 and Quad Cities Units 1,2 Nuclear Power Stations," Rev.1, dated April 1979, as subsequently revised by Errata and Addenda 1 through 12.
- 5). Letter. D. Eisenhut (NRC) to E. Fuller (GE), dated May 30, 1977.
l
'6) Letter, R. Engel (GE) to T. Ippolito (NRC), dated May '6,1981.
l
- 7) Letter, R. Engel (GE) to T. Ippolito (NRC), dated May 28, 1981.
l l
- 3) Menorandum, L. Rubenstein (NRC) for T. Novak (NRC), " Extension of l
GE-ECCS' Performance Limits," dated June 25, 1981.
- 9) GE Topical Report, NE00-21617-A, " Analog Transmitter / Trip Unit Systems for Engineered Safeguard Sensor Trip Inputs," dated December 1978
- 10) Letter, D. Eisenhut (NRC) to D. Farrar (CECO), dated June 24, 1982.
e i
)
l I
. _.