ML20137J757
| ML20137J757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J755 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601230186 | |
| Download: ML20137J757 (2) | |
Text
8
'o UNITED STATES
~g j'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,.....,o SAFETY, EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254/265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 2, 1983, the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Quad Cities Units No. 1 and 2.
These changes would impose more stringent surveillance requirements on the use of Economic Generation Control (EGC) system for each unit.
2.0 EVALUATION The EGC system was installed as original equipment at the Quad Cities Station.
Although its use was reviewed and approved at the operating license stage and both limiting (.cMitions for operation and surveillance requirements are in place for its use, the system has only recently been used at Quad Cities except for short periods of testing and demonstration.
In anticipation of more extensive use of the EGC system, the licensee proposed more strict surveillance requirements than are currently in the TS. The change would formalize, as TS surveillance requirements, certain actions that are: already contained in Quad Cities operating procedures for the use of EGC. More specifically, the proposed change would require that the EGC operating parameters, as defined in the written procedures, be reviewed for acceptability by the operators prior to entering and once per shift while operating EGC.
t The proposed change will ensure conservative operation of the EGC system
(
than currently required by the TS and is acceptable.
3.0 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 and a changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the l
types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no h120186860114 DOCK 050gogg4 P
N 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 categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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 manner, and (2) such activities will be condt:ted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Roby Bevan Dated: January 14, 1986.
l i
l