ML20126F286
| ML20126F286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126F237 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506170424 | |
| Download: ML20126F286 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d j
UNITED STATES e
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS XNU ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
~
By letter dated October 2, 1984, as supplemented by letter dated May 29, 1985. Comonwealth Edison Company (Ceco, the licensee) proposed to amend the Technical Specifications (TS) for Quad Cities, Unit 2 to allow the use of hafnium metal, as well as boron carbide (B C), for neutron absorber material 4
in control rod blades. At present the use of only B C is allowed for that 4
purpose.
2.0 EVALVATION The staff has previously approved the use of hafnium metal as a neutron absorber in control rods for other BWR nuclear units, including Monticello.,
Dresden Units 2 and 3 and Brunswick Units 1 and 2, as well as in operating PWRs.
In the upcoming operating cycle for Quad Cities Unit 2 the licensee will replace 39 of the standard control rod blades with advanced longer life control rod blades (ALLCR) which use hafnium metal, as well as boron carbide. These blades are designed to have the same worth control rod as the existing blades.
The details of the design are given in General Electric Topical Report NEDE-22290, Supplement 2. " Safety Evaluation of the General Electric Advanced Longer Life Control Assembly." We have completed our review of this report. We conclude that the use of these ALLCR blades in Quad Cities Unit 2 is acceptable, based on our finding that the tests and analyses presented in the topical report provide an acceptable level of assurance that the ALLCR blades will provide their intended safety function.
The details of the design and materials will not be included in the revised Technical Specifications. Since descriptions of the standard blade's exist in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and of the ALLCR blades'in the Topical Report NEDE-22290, Supplement 2 and the safety design criteria which control rods must meet are contained in the FSAR and in other Technical Specifications, we conclude that this is acceptable, 8506170424 850 PDR ADOCK O 5
P p
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 significar.t 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 Commission 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 issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
S
=
'"~
~
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 er. dangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not b! inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Lobel and R. Bevan Dated:
May 30, 1985 i