ML20147F383
| ML20147F383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147F377 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803070335 | |
| Download: ML20147F383 (2) | |
Text
o*
!(g%q'o UNITED STATES
?g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
n 9 E WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
%.....j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-373
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated August 25, and November 17, 1987, Comonwealth Edison proposed to amend Facility Operating License NPF-11 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. The proposed amendment changes the identification of the compartment in which the nonnal and emergency supply breakers for the shutdown cooling isolation valve are located and is purely administrative in nature.
2.0 EVALUATION The amendment requested changes the identification of the compartment in which the normal and emergency supply breakers for the shutdown cooling isolationvalve(1E12F0009)arelocated. This change was required because CECO has replaced the motor operator with one of the larger capacity to increase the reliability of the valve. The new, larger capacity operator requires the use of larger capacity breakers which will not fit into the existing cubicles. The replacement breakers will be
)
installed in larger compartments within the same motor control center as the originals. This change is purely administrative in nature to correct the identification of these new cubicle locations.
The staff has reviewed the proposed Technical Specification changes and I
concludes that the resultant Unit I license amendment is acceptable.
J 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAI. CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in the installation and use of a facility l
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20
)
and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has detennined that l
this 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 i
i cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves a no significant l
hazards censideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(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 this amendment.
8803070335 080301 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
T.
e=
5 2
4.0 CONCLIJSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 49220) on December 30, 1987, and consulted with the state of Illinois. No public comments were received, and the state of Illinois did not have any comments.
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 conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
REFERENCE Letters from C. Allen, Connonwealth Edison to USNRC dated August 25 and November 17, 1987.
Principal Contributor:
Paul Shemanski, NRR/PDIII-2 Dated:
March 1,1988 i
I 1
J rv
-,v
- - -. -.-,