ML20126E680
| ML20126E680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126E672 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506170178 | |
| Download: ML20126E680 (40) | |
Text
.
./
[9,,
UNITED STATES
[
.g-
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{*,
j-WASHINGTON, D C. 20655
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
- SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
AND IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS ARI ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-265 1.0~-INTRODUCTION By. letters dated January 3 and February 4, 1985, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) proposed changestto the Technical Specifications (TS) for Quad Cities Unit 2 (see References 1 and 2).
These changes would (1) incorporate new maximum average planar linear heat
~
generation rate (MAPLHGR) curves for two new barrier fuel types to be used
-l in the upcoming operating Cycle 8, and approve MAPLHGR curves for assembly
. average burnup to 45,000 MWD /ST for certain fuel types contained in the ccre 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 TS for. operation with the newly modified scram discharge system.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 MAPLHGR Limits The reference document containing the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) analysis for Quad Cities Unit I 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 _ 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 (E and A) to Reference 4.
Barrier fuel types BP80RB282 and BP8DRB283H, to be used in the core during the upcoming operating Cycle 8 for Quad Cities Unit 2, have previously been
- approved. for use-in Quad Cities Unit 1 (Reference 3) and are currently being used in operating Cycle 8 of that nuclear unit. The licensee's application (Reference 2) provides E and A No. 13 to the previously approved ECCS analysis for Quad Cities Unit I and 2 (Reference 4.).
As did E.and A No.12 for Quad Cities Unit 1, so does E and A No.13 to Re'ference 4 show that the MAPLHGR curves for fuel types BP8DRB282 and BP80RB283H satisfy the requirements of the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria, and are appropriate for incorporation into the TS for Quad Cities Unit 2, so that the licensee's proposal to change the TS to incorporate those MAPLHGR curves into the TS is acceptable.-
$M65 PDR
. The licensee's application (Reference 2) 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 E and A No. 10 to Reference 4, provided in the licensee's application (Reference 2), the licensee supports an exten (on to MAPLHGR curves from 30,000 to 45,000 MWD /ST for fuel types P3DRB2F nd BP80RB265H. These limits were generated by method previously appros i having general applicability for MAPLHGR limit determination (Refe..,
5).
In response to NRC staff concerns that the possible effects of enhanced fission gas release were not adequately considered in the fuel perfonnance model, GE requested that credit for approved but unapplied ECCS evaluation model changes and calculated peak cladding temperature margin be used to avoid MAPLHGR penalties at high burnups (References 6 and 7). This proposal was found acceptable (Reference 8) provided that certain plant-specific conditions were met. As documented in the licensee's application (Reference 2), the General Electric Company (GE)-produced supporting reference document demonstrates the applicability to Quad Cities Unit 2 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 pos.,1ble involvement of extended burnup (as high as 45,000 mwd /MT) fuel in the accident scenario, and concludes tha*: new radiological consequences would not be in excess of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) guideline value of 75 REM to the thyroid.
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the extended MAPLHGR limits for the fuel types cited are acceptable.
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 association with these changes, several existing instruments will be converted into analog trip systems; these are:
Reactor Low' Water Level Instrument, 2-263-57A and B and 2-263-58A and B Reactor Water High Level Instrument, 2-263-73A and B High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) High Steam Flow Instrument, 2-2389A through D HPCI Steam Line Low Pressure Instrument, 2-2352 and 2-2353 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 calibration and functional testing for instrument loops of the 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 per month. The proper calibration / functional test frequency for the respective transmitters, however, is once per operating cycle. The TS changes proposed in Reference 1 are essentially identical to those previously approved for Unit 1 (Reference 3), and would require the channel calibration to be perfonned 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.
2.3 Scram Discharge System A Generic Safety Evaluation for the modified scram discharge system, issued December 10, 1980, endorsed the criteria set forth by the BWR Owners 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, the licensee's commitment to modify its scram discharge system in response to these concerns was confirmed (Reference 10). Also, model Technical
~
Specifications were forwarded to the licensee as guidance for revising the TS for operation with the newly modified scram discharge system.
Following a period of discussion with the licensee regarding the application of the model Technical Specifications to the unit-specific TS for Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 the licensee by letter dated January 3, 1985 proposed TS for the newly modified scram discharge system for Unit 2.
The TS changes proposed in the licensee's submittal are essentially identical to those previously approved for Unit 1 (Peference 3), are fully responsive to the concerns addressed in the Generic Safety Evaluation on scram discht,rge systems, are in keeping with the guidance provided in the model Technical Specifications, and are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S 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 individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission 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 9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuan:e of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon
~
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. B. Bevan Dated:
May 30, 1985
REFERENCES 1)-
Letter, R. Rybak (CECO) to H. Denton (NRC), dated January 3, 1985.
2)
Letter,'R. Rybak (Ceco) to H. Denton (NRC), dated February 4 -1985.
3)
Letter. R. Bevan (NRC) to D. Farrar (CECO), dated August 2,1984.
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 13.
5).
Letter, D. Eisenhut (NRC) to E. Fuller (GE), dated May 30, 1977.
6)
Letter, R. Engel (GE) to T. Ippolito (NRC), dated May 6, 1981.
7)
Letter, R. Engel.(GE) to T. Ippolito (NRC), dated May 28, 1981.
- 8) ~ Memorandum, L. Rubenstein (NRC) for T. Novak (NRC), " Extension of GE-ECCS Performance Limits," dated June 25, 1981.
9)
GE Topical Report, NED0-21617-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.
O e
h