ML20209C295
| ML20209C295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1999 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C289 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907090240 | |
| Download: ML20209C295 (5) | |
Text
-.
ATTACHMENT B, Pr: posed Chings to Technic 11 Specific ti::n f:r Quid Citirs Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 MARKED-UP PAGES FOR PROPOSED CHANGES REVISED PAGE(S) 3/4.3-3 l
9907090240 990629 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
PDR r-p
,r'
eW-
9 9
REACTIVITY CONTROL
-k CR OPERABILITY 3/4.3.C 3.3 - LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION 4.3 - SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS C.
Control Rod OPERABILITY All contr$ uds shall be OPERABLE.
1.
When above the low power setpoint of the RWM, all withdrawn control rods AfPLICABILITY:
not required to have their directional control valves disarmed electrically or OPERATIONAL f.iODE(s) 1 and 2.
hydraulically shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by moving each control rod at least one notch:
ACTION; a.
r d
1.
With one control rod inoperable due to being immovable as a result of b.
Within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when any control excessive friction or mechanical rod is immovable as a result of interference, or known to be excessive friction or rnechanical unscrammable:
interference, or known to be unscrammable.
I a.
Within one hour:
2.
All control rods shall be demonstrated
- 1) Verify that the inoperable OPERABLE by performance of control rod, if withdrawn, is Surveillance Requirements 4.3.D, separated from all other 4.3.F, 4.3.G, 4.3.H and 4.3.1.
inoperable withdrawn control rods by at least two control (b) cells in all directions.
'"5
'"'8 P'"
'38
{., e ge( fa%
wikkAenwa.
3
- 2) Disarrn tlie associated
. directional control valves
g g4 s
either:
o nce pee 3% dags
.[. c ese.L.
AcY,att3 w$4h dcause. cediro\\
a) Electrically or b) Hydraulically by closing the drive water and exhaust water isolation l
valves.
l b.
With the provisions of ACTION 1.a above not met, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
b Nok weausred io be pecinemed WYs\\ 7 dags he hu uddr.
er g
214...u..,=4.%,u. w&c. #c c.a,.1 m,s.,u-_
a d a b.c w,e t.
p or a 4,..
4o,
- gam, May be rearmed intermittently, under administrative control to permit testing associated with restoring the control rod
(
a j
to OPERABLE status.
QUAD CITIES - UNITS 1 & 2 3/4.3 3 Amendment Nos.
171 a 167 l
ATTACHMENT C, Pr posed Ch;nge to Technini Specifirti:n f:r Qu:d Citi:s Nutcr Power Stati:n Units 1 and 2, Page 1 of 2 INFORMATION SUPPORTING NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS FINDING Comed has evaluated this proposed amendment and has determined that it does not represent a significant hazards consideration. According to 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
Involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed; or Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Comed is proposing to change the requirements for control rod testing to increase the
" notch testing" surveillance interval of Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 4.3.C.1a.
The determination that the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 (c) is met for this amendment request is indicated below:
Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change extends the Surveillance Frequency for partially withdrawn control rods. The change does not affect equipment design or operation. The affected Surveillance is not considered to be an accident initiator. Therefore, this change will not significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Furthermore, extension of the Surveillance Frequency will not impact the ability of the system to perform its function following an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The extension of the Surveillance Frequency does not involve physical modification to the plant and does not introduce a new mode of operation.
Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
ATTACHMENT C, Pr posed Ch:nge 13 Technicil Specific;ti:n fcr Quad Citi s Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Page 2 of 2 Does the change involve a significant reductior 'n a margin of safety?
The change in the Surveillance Frequency only provides a minor reduction in the probability of finding an inoperable control rod. Most of the control rods will continue to be tested on the current Frequency. However, if one stuck rod is identified, all rods must be checked promptly.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, based upon the above evaluation, Comed has concluded that these changes involve no significant hazards consideration.
1
l
)
ATTACHMENT D, Pr: posed Ch:nge 13 Technic:1 Specifistirn fcr Qu:d Citi:s Nuclear Pow:r St:.ti:n Unit 31 and 2, P ge 1 cf 1 A
INFORMATION SUPPORTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Comed has evaluated this prooosed operating license amendment request against the 1
criteria for identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.21. Comed has determined that this proposed license amendment request meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and as such, has determined that no irreversible consequences exist in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92(b). This determination is based on the fact that this change is being proposed as an amendment to a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 50 that changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 20, or that changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement, and the amendment meets the j
following specific criteria:
1 (i) the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
As demonstrated in Attachment C, this proposed amendment does not involve any significant hazards consideration.
(ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite.
The proposed change is administrative in nature. There will be no change in the types or significant increase in the amounts ti any effluents released offsite.
(iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The proposed changes will not result in changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. There will be no change in the level of controls or methodology used for processing of radioactive effluents or handling of solid radioactive waste, nor will the proposal result in any change in the normal radiation levels within the plant. Therefore, there will be no increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure resulting from this change.
.