ML20100G052
| ML20100G052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100G042 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8504080042 | |
| Download: ML20100G052 (3) | |
Text
.. -
ll
- t l-f8 UNITED STATES
-[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.L j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f
SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO NPF-18 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-374 Introduction License Condition 2.C.(5) of License NPF-18 and.Section 50.49, " Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power 4
Plants," established a deadline for completion of the environmental quali-fication of electrical equipment. By' letters dated January 8, 1985, as supplemented by letters dated January 30, 1985 and February 5, 1985, Commonwealth Edison Company (licensee) requested an extension from March 31, 1985 to November 30, 1985.
Plants are allowed to operate prior to the deadline for qualification specified in 10 CFR-50.49, or any extension to that deadline granted by the staff or the Comission, with equipment whose qualification has not been completed if it can be shown that such operation will not present undue risk.to the public health and safety pending complete qualification.
Analyses, called justifications for continued operation (JCOs) in the-case of an operating plant, and required to be performed by the licensee that demonstrate the plant can be operated in a safe manner with the equipment i
not yet qual _ified.
l The licensee provided JCOs addressing the equipment for which an extension
[
-to the qualification deadline has been requested.
In addition, the licensee indicated that the principle factors for_not meeting the date were. test complications, long procurement lead times and installation complexities.
Evaluation p
i Licensee Condition 2.C.(5) has been revised to incorporate a November 30, 4-1985 deadline for completion of environmental qualification of electrical
~
equipment 1:nportant to safety instead of the presently imposed March 31, 1985 deadline.
The licensee indicates that the total number of components requiring qualification for Unit 2 to 10 CFR 50.49 requirements are 745,'656 of Lwhich will be qualified prior to March 31, 1985.- The items subject to the.
extension request and the > justification offered by the licensee for each group of: equipment, are_as follows:
c I
i 1.
Fifty l(50): Limitorque Valve Motor Operators to be modified to.
attain a qualified configuration. The operators ~have been tordered but will not be available until April 1985.
g, i
?
9
~
2.
Four '(4). S&K Flow Elements to be replaced by qualified elements.
The qualifications of the original elements was determined to be insufficient late into the testing program, July 1984, and a long lead time is required for procurement of the new hardware.
~
3.
Two (2) Delphi Hydrogen-Oxygen' Analyzers to be modified to attain qualified configuration. The extension is requested because of the long procurement time for heat tracing systems and their associated control panels which are scheduled for delivery by August 1985.
4.
One (1) Atomic International Hydrogen Recombiner to be modified to attain qualified configuration. The extension.is warranted partly because of--difficulty in procuring thermocouples needed to be replaced;and also the complexity of the installation. The thennocouples are scheduled to be.. delivered August 1985.
5.
Six (6). Klockner-Moeller AC Motor Control Centers are not qualified. Testing began in September 1984 but, due to long aging times and detailed functional testing of so many devices,.
I this test will not be completed until September 1985. The test models represent the present' installation so that no field modifica.tions are anticipated..
6.
Eight (8) Magnetrol Level Switches to be modified to attain qualified configuration. A unit outage is required to complete the modification work.
7.
Eighteen (18) Terminal Boards to be modified to attain qualified configuration. Testing on these boards were completed on resently under evaluation by and the data is p(A/E).
October 24, 1984, This review and the licensee's Architect / Engineer reconsnendation for any corrective action by the;A/E will be completed this month. Preliminary results of the A/E's review indicates that modifications maybe needed for tenninal boards in safety-related instrumentation. All modifications identified' l
in this evaluation will be completed prior to any operation after l.
~ November 30, 1985.=
L The staff.has reviewed each of the JCOs provided by the licensee and find l
them acceptable since they are based on essentially the same criteria 'that
'were used by the staff 'and its contractor to review JC0's'previously submitted by licensees. These criteria, listed below, are also essentially.
l the same as those contained in 10 CFR 50.49(1):
l a.
The safety function can be accomplished by some'other designated
equipment that is' qualified, and failure of the principal equipment i
(-
ias a result of the harsh environment will not degrade other safety l
functions.or mislead the operator. -
o I.
I I
1..
.~
- q.,
t i b.-
Partial test data that does not demonstrate full qualificatica, but provides a basis for concluding the equipment will perform i-this function.
If it can not be concluded from the available data l'
that the equipment will not fail after completion of its safety function, then that failure must not result in significant degradation of any safety function or provide misleading infor-mation to the operator.-
i c.
Limited use of administrative con'trols over equipment that has not been demonstrated to be fully _ qualified.. For any ecuipment assumed to fail as a result oflthe accident environment that failure must not result in significant degradation of any.. safety i.
function or' provide misleading information to the operator.
Based on the above evaluation, we' conclude that. continued operation of La Salle Unit 2,' with the environmental qualification of. the equipment identified above not. fully established,lwill not present undue risk to the f
public health and safety. The staff finds that the requested schedule change.is. acceptable and Lice,nse Condition 2.C.(5) may be revised accordingly.
Environmental Consideration-This amendment involves a change'in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area 'as defined in'10 CFR Part'20.
The staff has detennined that the ' amendment. involves no significant. increase in the amounts, and no significant changerin 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public' comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for:categoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFRSection51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to:10CFR~51.22(b)noenvironmentallimpact'statementor. environmental. assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the' issuance:of this amendment.
i Conclusion l
The Corrmission made a proposed determination that the amendment--involves-pi no significant hazards consideration which was. published in the Federal Register (50 FR 7420) on February 22,1985.. 'No public coments were received.
x
- We have 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, and (2) such l
Lactivities will be conducted in compliance'with the Comission's regulations e
'and the issuance of:this amendment will not besininiical to the common.
~
, defense and; security orato the health and safety of the public..
c.,
c j
(Dated:"NAR 28 ja s
-.-. -. - --