ML20197F059
| ML20197F059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F058 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605150411 | |
| Download: ML20197F059 (10) | |
Text
--
.. p er
(
o UNITED STATES
['
~,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'5
- y WASHIN2Tc N, D. C. 20555 i
SAFETY EVALUATION RY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-18 I
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 21, 1986, Commonwealth Edison (the licenseel requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License NPF-11 and NPF-18 for LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2.
The amendment reflects the addition of backup overload protective devices for containment electric penetrations which are required to satisfy License Condition 2.C.(23) for Unit 1 and to clarify the existing installation for Unit 2.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed several technical specification changes with respect to these amendments. These changes have been reviewed in accordance with the guidelines contained in NUREG-0123, "GE STS (RWR/5) Standard Technical Specifications."
a.
Table 3.8.3.2-1, " Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices" has been changed in order to identify the backup devices that are to be insta11ed'in Unit I and to clarify the existing installation for Unit 2.
The staff agrees with the licensee that this change is required by License Condition 2.C.(23). The staff concludes that this change is consistent with NUREG-0123 guidelines'and is accept-able. Surveillance requirement 4.8.3.2.a.1 has also been changed to reflect the' above change to Table 3.8.3.2-1.
The staff concludes that this change is consistent with NUREG-0123 guidelines and is acceptable.
b.
Section 3.8.3.2, Action a and b for both Units 1 and 2, has been changed in order to provide clarification. This clarification is not consistent with NUREG-0123 guidelines. However, the staff agrees with the licensee that the required actions for deenergizing ctreuits apply equally to 6.9 kV, 4.16 kV, or 480 volt circuits and that different actions for these different circuits are unnecessary. The staff, therefore, con-cludes that the LaSalle Technical Specification should be revised to reflei:t this clarification.
c.
Table 3.8.3.2-1 has also been revised to delete " Trio Setooint" and
" Response Time" information. The staff agrees with the licensee that this information represents nominal trip setooints (well below the sfesign 8605150411 960509 PDR ADOCK 05000373-P PDR j
1 l current of electrical oenetrations), that any trip setpoint change will be reviewed to ensure that they remain within the penetration design i
limits, and that the information does not need to be included as a requ'irement in the Technical Specifications. The staff, therefore, concludes that this deletion is acceptable.
In addition, it should be noted that this deletion is not consistent with the current NUREG-0123 a
guidelines but is consistent with croposed staff revisions to NUREG-0123 guidelines and Technical Specifications issued to recently licensed plants.
Surveillance requirements 4.8.3.2.a.1.b and 4.8.3.2.a.2 have also been changed to reflect the above change to Table 3.8.3.2.1.
The staff con-4 l
cludes that these changes, although not consistent, are equivalent to j
NUREG-0123 guidelines and are acceptable.
l d.
Surveillance requirement 4.8.3.2.a.2 has been revised to specify only a j
maximum response time limit requirement versus both maximum and minimum limit. The staff agrees with the licensee that there is no need to i
specify a minimum limit since the safety concern is related to a com-bination of excessive time and current that a fault is allowed to exist.
The staff, therefore, concludes that this change is acceptable.
4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
)
These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and chances in surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significent increase in the amounts, and no significant changes in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumula-tive occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued l
a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accord-ingly, these 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 l
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
j
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that these amendments. involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reaister (51 FR 12227) on April 9,1986, and consulted with the state of
-j Illinois.
No public comments were received, and the state of Illinois did not have any coments.
3
~
-. - - - - - -... - ~.
3-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 reaula-tions and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Knox, NRR Dated:
May 9,1986 1
l 4
6 e
O 9
1 h
a