ML20114D190
| ML20114D190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114D183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209080019 | |
| Download: ML20114D190 (2) | |
Text
,
j** "'%
[
P%
UNITED STATES E
'M 2?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g f
WASWNGTON, D C. M45
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION R[ LATED TO AMENDMENT NO 137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMEN 0 MENT N0.133 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND Jp1A-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY QQAQ CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 RQ_2 QDCKEl NOSm 50-254 AND 50-265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 21, 1992, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) proposed an amandment to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The amendment changes an action provisioq for the High Pressure Coolant injection (HPCI) and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RLIC) systems.
The current action provision requires shutdown to a reactor pressure below 150 psig upon failure of either the low pressure or high pressure flow tests for HPCI or RCIC.
The amendment still requires shutdown upon failure of the low pressure flow test, but would allow 14 days before snutdown is required upon failure of the high pressure flow test.
2.0 EVALUATION On March 8, 1991, we issued an amendment that removed the requirement to demonstrate operability of other Emergency Core Cooling Systems when HPCI or RCIC is inoperable.
In reviewing the amendment, we compared the proposal to the BWR Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-0123, Revision 3.
Part of our basis for concludir.g that the amendment was acceptable was that it was similar to the BWR STS or more const.rvative than the BWR STS.
In one area, the amendment issued on March 8,1991, was more conservative than the BWR STS.
The.BWR STS would allow 14 days before shutdown is required upon failure of the high pressure flow tett of HPCI or RCIC. The March 8, 1991 amendment, upon failure of the same test, requires initiation of an orderly shutdown and reduction of reactor pressure to less than 150 psig within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The licensee proposes to allow the same 14 days before shutdown as is allowed in the BWR STS.
gRo90eoo19 920027i p
ADOCK 05000254 PDR-
The existing TS does not allow suffic'ent time to determine the cause of the test failure and implement corrective actions.
Fur;hermore, at the reduced pressure below 150 psig, the ability to determine the cause of the test failure would be greatly hindered.
The proposed TS would allow more time' to correct the cause of the test failure, resulting in less unnecessary cycling of the units. During the 14-day period allowed by the proposed TS, the BWR STS and the proposed TS have similar-compensatory measures.
When HPCI is inoperable, the automatic
' pressure relief subsystem, ( re spray subsystem, LPCI mode of residual heat removal (RHR) and RCIC must ce operable; and with RCIC inoperable, HPCI mJst be operaolo.
Therefore, we find the proposed amendment to be acceptable because:
(1) it would reduce unnecessary cycling of the units, (2) it would enhance the ability to determine the cause of the test failure and implement corrective actions, (3) it provides sufficient compensatory measures during the extra time that it allows, and (4) it is consistent with the BWR STS.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State official was notified of the preposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no c.omments.
4,0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendnents change a requirement with respect tc the installation or use of a facility cumponent 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 significent change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Tne Commission has praviously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 0036). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursu:nt to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environn. ental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendmants.
5.0-
[Q,NJQVHQfj 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 mar.ner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, i
and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be ini.nical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
. Principal Contributor:
L. Olshan Date: August 27, 1992
.