ML20111B212
| ML20111B212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20111B199 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503130031 | |
| Download: ML20111B212 (2) | |
Text
'
g UNITED STATES
(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
t E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 85 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS ANU ELECTRIC COMPANY OUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-265 1.0 Introduction By letter dated December 4,1984 Commonwealth Edison (the licensee) made application to amend the Technical Specifications of Ouad Cities Station Unit 2, Cycle 7, in order to facilitate the performance of end-of-cycle ramp tests on Barrier Fuel Assemblies. The amendment would permit a 12 percent increase in the operatino limit Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) for the 16 Barrier Demonstration assemblies to 15.0 kilowatts per foot (kw/ft). The licensee provided a Safety Evaluation supporting the proposed change as Attachment 1 to the above letter.
2.0 Evaluation A similar request for a 10 percent increase in the LHGR for the Ramp Demonstration cells was approved by the staff for Quad Cities Unit 2 for the end-of-cycle 6 (Reference 1). That approval was based on the following:
i a.
Only the 16 fuel bundles in the four Ramp Demonstration cells are affected by the proposed increase in LHGR limits and only one rod in each cell is expected to violate the 13.4 kw/ft limit.
b.
The duration of operation above 13.4 kw/ft is expected to be less than two months.
c.
TheMaximumAveragePlanarLinearHeatGenerationRate(MAPLHGR) values are calculated to remain well below the limiting values during the tests.
d.
Analyses provided by the licensec show that the 1 percent plastic strain limit would not be violated during limiting transients initiated from the revised LHGR limits.
Some reservation was expressed by the staff about the correct value for the plastic strain Ifmit and its use as the appropriate limit but it was concluded that sufficient margin to the limit was present to permit the conclusion that overall fuel performance wnuld not he compromised.
850313ggg$$$$$365 PDR PDR P
. The same arguments continue to apply for the proposed Cycle 7 limits on the operating limit LPGR. The expected duration of possible operation above 13.4 kw/ft is only one month. The transient analyses.results indicate a margin of 4.8 kw/ft to the. plastic strain limit. We, therefore, conclude that there is reasonable assurance that a 12 percent increase in the allowable peak LHGR value for the Barrier Pamp Cell fuel assemblies for a i
period from the initiation of the test until the end of Cycle 7 shutdown will not compromise licensing safety limits on MCPR, MAPLHGR. or 1 percent l
cladding strain and that overall fuel performance will not be compromised by the LHGR limit increase. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed license amendment is acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Consideration i
The 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 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 t
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. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(gibility criteria 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 amendment.
4.0 Conclusions i
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(11 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such t
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 Reference i
1.
Letter,R.Bevan(NRC)toD.Farrar(Commonwealth 1,'datedMarch3, 1983.
Principal Contributor:
W. Brooks Dated:
February 25, 1985