ML20149L403
| ML20149L403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149L398 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802240216 | |
| Download: ML20149L403 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
(
a uom o
UNITED STATES N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT N0. 101 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY EL IOWA-ILLIN0IS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OVAD G YIES huCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 1.0 INTRODUCT!UN In order to comply with an hRC Reguletory Guide (RG) 1.97 commitment to expand the indicating range of drywell pressure recorders, Comonwealth i
Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) replaced affected scales and recalibrated corresponding instruments.
However, these scale modifications were inconsistent with Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
Consequently, on October 16, 1987 Ceco submitted an amendment request to revise TS appropriately.
2.0 EVALUATION I
TS Table 3.2-4 specifies three ranges, and four channels, for drywell pressure indication: " 5 inches Hg to 5 psig", "O to 75 psig", and "O to 250 psig". One of these ranges, "O to 75 psig", was expanded to "-10 inches Hg to 70 psig" by rescaling the recorder and respanning applicable instrumentation.
This modification was accomplished, without hardware instrument changes, to provide for negative drywell pressure indication on a wide range scale. Those indicators which display up to 250 psig are also present on front panels in the control room, and will continue to provide for drywell pressures in excess of 70 psig.
Futhermore, the drywell pressure boundary at QCNPS was designed for a maximum internal pressure of 62 psig, which is still within the "-10 inches Hg to 70 psig" pressure range. Thus, no meaningful information capability was lost by this modification. To the contrary, a broader range of negative drywell pressure indication is now availebte te the operators without altering any modes of equipment or instrument operations. The only physical equipment change actually made was to replace the control roon scale display of recorder 8740-12 to allow for visual quantification of the expanded instrument range.
This modification made was in accordance with CECO comitments to meet the post-accident monitoring requirements of RG 1.97.
8802240216 880217 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
1 t
b i i Consequently, the NRC staff has concluded that CECO's amendment request of October 16, 1987 does accurately correct the applicable TS to inorporate the revised drywell pressure indication range and is therefore, acen table.
An additional TS change war proposed for Quad Cities Unit 2. DPR-30, which corrects a typographical error on Table 3.2-4 where reference is made to Unit 1 instrumentation rather than Unit 2.
This is simply an administra-tive clarification, and is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amencments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that tnese amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite and there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR51.22(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 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 coninon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Ross Dated:
February 17, 1988
_