ML20137T170
| ML20137T170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137T163 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602180261 | |
| Download: ML20137T170 (2) | |
Text
s pa ntoq
- g jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmmoTom, p. c. zoess g
ry
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 92 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO. 89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254/265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During the inspection period May 9 - June 5, 1981, as reported in an Inspection Report for Quad Cities 1 and 2 dated July 16, 1981, the NRC's resident inspector noted that Conenonwealth Edison Company -(licensee) fulfilled the requirement of Technical Specification 4.3.C.1, which states that "after each refueling outage and prior to operation with reactor pressure above 800 psig, all control rods shall be subject to scram time tests from the fully withdrawn position", by performing the testing with the reactor depressurized.
It was the inspectors' opinion that the wording of 4.3.C.1 would be better interpreted to mean that the tests should be performed above 800 psig but before power operation.
Following a review, the staff proposed that the test should be conducted while the reactor pressure is greater than 800 psig and prior to exceeding 950 psig.
It was also agreed that scram time tests would be conducted prior to exceeding 30%
of the reactor licensed power following a refueling outage.
In two letters dated May 2, 1983 the licensee proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes to clarify this procedure for both the Dresden 2/3 units and the Quad Cities 1/2 units.
In the same submittal the licensee also requested TS changes that allowed Control Rod Drive (CRD) pumps to be isolated only during single rod scram testing. This request was based on a proposed purchase of equipment that would allow multiple scram testing; e.g. during any reactor It is the licensee's position that during full core testing there is scram.
insufficient charging system capacity to bias scram insertion times and that the current BWR Standard Technical Specifications reflect this distinction.
2.0 EVALUATION Based on an analysis'of the proposed procedures for scram time testing following a refueling outage, the staff has determined that such testing should be conducted with the reactor pressure above 800 psig but before the pressure exceeds 950 psig. The tests should also be performed before exceeding 30% of the reactor licensed power. The changes proposed by the 8602180261 840207 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
e
- licensee reflect these staff determinations and are, therefore, acceptable. The staff also agrees, after a technical review and a consideration of the BWR Standard Technical specifications, that the request to have the CRD pumps isolated only during single rod scram testing meets staff criteria and is, therefore, acceptable.
Thus, the staff finds that the licensee's proposal to improve the wording of Technical Specification Sections 4.3.C.1 and 4.3.C.2 for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 to reflect the staff's position, as stated above, is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 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 amendments meet 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
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 these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Bevan and R. Gilbert.
Dated:
Febraury 7, 1986.