ML20099M366
| ML20099M366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099M357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9601030349 | |
| Download: ML20099M366 (2) | |
Text
__
M aro 4
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION
~
S I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3066H001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NOCL%8_EffCTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 147 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-19.
AND AMENDMENT NO. 141 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. 50-237 AND 50-249
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 14, 1995, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed, the licensee) submitted an amendment requesting to upgrade sections of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The changes have been requested as part of its Technical Specification Upgrade Program (TSUP). The change addressed in this amendment is a partial implementation of the November 14, 1995, request. No change in the TS pages is involved.
1 2.0 EVALUATION In its letter dated November 14, 1995, Comed requested the implementation dates for nine of the previously issued TSUP amendments be changed from December 31, 1995, to June 30, 1996, for the Dresden Station. Subsequent to the issuance of these amendments, Comed delayed implementation of TSUP at Dresden. Comed had scheduled implementation upon the startup from the current Dresden, Unit 2, refueling outage.
This startup is now scheduled for early 1996. To allow for some margin for schedule changes the implementation date was requested to be changed to no later than June 30, 1996.
The amendments listed below should be implemented along with the other approved TSUP section amendments which state that they shall be implemented no later than June 30, 1996.
This is an administrative change and is, therefore,
_ acceptable. _
AMENDMENT NOS.
Unit 2/ Unit 3 TSUP SECTIOS JSSUE DATE 131/125 1.0, 3/4.0 February 16, 1995 139/133 3/4.1 September 20, 1995 137/131 3/4.3 July 27, 1995 4
133/127 3/4.4 June 8, 1995 140/134 3/4.6 September 21, 1995 138/132 3/4.9 September 18, 1995 136/130 3/4.10 June 23, 1995 134/128 2.0, 3/4.11, 3/4.12 June 13, 1995 135/129 5.0 June 14, 1995 9601030349 951229 PDR ADOCK 05000237 P
4 W
2
' 3.0 SUP91ARY The proposed amendment will ensure that all TSUP amendment sections will be implemented no later than June 30, 1996. The staff finds that the changes proposed in this amendment do not pose any decrease in safety, or an increase in the probability of an analyzed or unanalyzed accident.
The revised implementation date changes do not reduce the existing margin of safety set forth by the CTS. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed TS changes acceptable.
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 61272). 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.
6.0 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 pblic.
Principal Contributors:
R. Pulsifer Date: December 29, 1995