ML20196F426
| ML20196F426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities, 050254O  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196F421 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906290204 | |
| Download: ML20196F426 (4) | |
Text
l p erro l
p 4
UNITED STATES i
g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20606-0001 o
%,**<> f
{
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.188 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT NO,185 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 30,1999, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed, the licensee) proposed changes to the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, licenses. The changes included 1) revising license conditions in each of the respective operating licenses to delete those license conditions that no longer apply,2) making an editorial change in the Unit i license, and 3) providing clarifying information regarding the license condition in each license concerning equalizer valve restrictions.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to administratively clean-up the Unit 1 and 2 operating licenses to clsrify sections as well as delete sections that no longer apply.
1.
On June 28,1996, the staff issued Technical Specification (TS) Amendment No.171 for Unit 1 (DPR-29) and Amendment No.167 for Unit 2 (DPR-30). As part of these amendment changes, license conditions 3.M, " Surveillance Requirements" and 3.L,
' Surveillance Requirements" were added to Unit 1 and 2 licenses, respectively. These license conditions were added to indicate those surveillance requirements that could be deferred to the time of first opportunity to accomplish the surveillance without causing undue hardship to the plant. However, in no case were these surveillances to be deferred later than entering MODE 2 after the completion of the next refueling outage (Q1R15 for Unit 1 and Q2R14 for Unit 2) after implementation of the amendments. The licensee had completed these surveillances during the subsequent refueling outage upon implementation of Amendment No.171 for Unit 1 and Amendment No.16'7 for Unit 2. The license's request dated March 30,1999, requested the deletion of license conditions 3.M for Unit 1 and 3.L for Unit 2 because these license conditions have been l
met and are no longer required.
l l
9906290204 990625 l
hDR ADOCK 05000254 PM
l:
[
, License condition 3.N, " Additional Conditions" for Unit 1 was added by Amendment No.177 and license condition 3.M, " Additional Conditions" for Unit 2 was added by Amendment No.175 dated May 23,1997. These were added to the licenses to include an Appendix C that would list additional license conditions with schedules that the licensee had to meet. The licensee has requested that licenso condition 3.N for Unit 1 and 3.M for Unit 2 be deleted because the description of the Reactor Coolant System design pmssure, temperature, and volume was removed from TS Section 5.4 and incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as the additional license condition required. This was the only additionallicense condition placed into Appendix C.
The removal of the Reactor Control System design pressure, temperature, and volume l
description from the TS to the UFSAR was a routine commitment made for the request of an amendment to the TS which was approved irs a safety evaluation dated May 23, 1997, Appendix C was established to capture routine commitments at the time of i
issuance of Amendments 177/175. However, routine commitments on technical matters l
that do not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TS by 10 CFR 50.36 or inclusion in the l
license to address a significant safety issue should be discussed in the safety evaluation, but should now not be escalated into formal license conditions. The licensee has requested the deletion of these additional license conditions in Appendix C because this action has been completed as stated in the license condition by incorporating the description into the UFSAR, Section 5.1 License Condition 3.N and 3.M for Units 1 and 2, respectively, will be deleted - which also eliminates Appendix C.
Because these are administrative changes and the required license conditions have been met, the deletion of license conditions 3.M and 3.N for Unit 1 and 3.L and 3.M for Unit 2 are acceptable.-
2.
License condition 3.A, " Maximum Power Level," for Unit i states: " Commonwealth l
Edison is authorized to operate Quad-Cities Unit 2 at power levels not in excess of 2511 l
megawatts (thermal)." The licensee requests that the reference to Unit 2 be replaced by a reference to Unit 1 because this is the Unit i license and the stated maximum power level, in fact, applies to Unit 1. This is an administrative change to correct a
__ typographical error and is, therefore, acceptable. The Unit 2 license is correct with respect to the maximum power level for Unit 2.
L 3.
Amendment No. 25 dated March 12,1976, for Unit 1 and Amendment No.12 dated April 21,1975, for Unit 2 were issued to incorporate operating limits in the TS for the respective facilities. Part of these amendments included the addition to each license, of I
I license condition 3.D,
- Equalizer Valve Restriction," which stated; "The valves in the l
equalizer piping between the recirculation loops shall be closed at all times during l
reactor operation." The safety evaluations supporting the addition of these license
' conditions state that the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis did not cover the l
equalizer line area and that the largest recirculation break area assumed was A2 L
square feet. This break size is based on operation with a closed valve in the eoualizer line between the two recirculation loops. Therefore, a license condition had been added l
l c
)
1
. to each license which prohibits reactor operation unless the valve in the equalizer line is
- closed, j
information Notice gN) 97-43 issued by the NRC noted that a review of various plant licenses indicated several problems, one of which was the license condition regarding equalizer valves in boiling water reactors. The IN noted that the applicable license condition regarding equalizer valves did not accurately reflect the actual equalizer piping configuration or the applicable UFSAR. The licensee for Quad Cities has proposed to revise license condition 3.D for each license to accurately reflect the UFSAR that, in Section 5.4.1.2.2,
- Recirculation Pumps, Valves and Piping," states: "An equalizer line j
connects the two recirculation loops, and consists of a stainless steel ide with two pairs of remotely operated valves. Three of the four valves are closed during normal operation with one valve left open for thermal expansion of the water."
The licensee proposes to revise license condition 3.D for both licenses by stating:
J "Three of four valves in the equalizer piping between the recirculation loops shall be closed at all times during reactor operation with one bypass valve open to allow for thermal expansion of water." This clarification of the equalizer line configuration which allows for thermal expansion between the twn equalizer line valves more accurately i
describes the operational configuration of the plants and is more conservative than the design analysis which had only one closed equalizer valve. This is an administrative change to more accurately reflect the actual plant configuration and design analysis; therefore, it is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the lilinois State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC 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 cr cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously ir sued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considenstion, and there has been no public comment on such finding (64 FR 24195). 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 j
issuance of the amendments.
l
r l
-4
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there 1
is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the ' amendments will not be inimical to the i
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Robert M. Pulsifer Date: June 25, 1999 j
I l
l l
l l
,