ML20209H908
| ML20209H908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H849 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702060165 | |
| Download: ML20209H908 (2) | |
Text
...
a c Eng,jo UNITED STATES
- [(
g p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
g WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THF OFFICE OF WilCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTINr. AMENDMENT f!0. 99 TO FACILITY ODERATING LTCENSE N0. DPP-?9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 96 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMYONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY AND TOL!A-ILLINDIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-P54/265 1.0 I*lTRODUCTION The reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG) is one of the main factors affecting the risk from station blackout and thus the improvement of EDG reliability can reduce the risk of core damage from station black-out events.
Further, the staff has concluded that excessive testing results in degradation of diesel engines and potential for reduced reliability. The staff was concerned with the number of unnecessary EDG tests for the earlier licensed operating plants which are required under their current Technical Specifications (TS) to perform frecuent testino.
No such TS exists for the recently licer. sed plants as established in Standard Technical Specifications.
In an effort to reduce excessive testing of EDGs in these earlier plants and amend their TS to reflect comparable testing with that of Standard Technical Specifications, Generic Letter 84-15 (D. Eisenhut to All Licensees, dated July 2, 19841 recom-mended that the surveillance requirements for testing EDGs, because of inoperability of emergency core cooling systems, be deleted from plant unique TS.
i 2.0 EVAll!ATION Ry submittal dated June 28, 1985, Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco) requested to amend EDG TS for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2.
The TS and bases which the licensee proposed to amend for both Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 are as follows:
Surveillance / Rases Pace Inoperable ECCS Eauipment 1.
3.5.A.2 3.5/4.5-7 One core spray system 7.
3.5.A.4 3.5/4.5-2 One of the RHD pumps 3.
3.5.A.5 3.5/4.5-3 LPCI mode of DHR 4.
3.5.R.3 3.5/4.5-4 One containment cooling subsystem 5.
Bases 3.5.A 3.5/4.5-11 LCO Bases 6.
3.9.E.1 3.9/4.q-3 E0r, inoperable
$2060165870121 i
p ADOCK 05000254 PDR
)
. t We have reviewed all of the above proposed TS changes and find the changes to be consistent with the intent of NRC staff actions (Generic letter i
84-15) to improve and maintain EDG reliability by reducing excessive EDG testino, with the exception noted below. Therefore, NPC staff finds all l
of the proposed TS changes to be acceptable with the exception noted i
below.
To reduce further the number of EDG starts, the CECO also proposed to change TS 3.9.E.1 on page 3.9/4.9-3.
In the current Ouad Cities TS, the operable EDGs are required to be tested imediately and daily thereafter when either the unit or shared EDG is declared inoperable. The proposed amendment would delete the initial and daily thereafter testing of operable EDG. While NRC staff agrees that deletion of EDG testing daily thereafter is consistent with the intent of Generic Letter 8bl5, it is not NRC staff's intent to eliminate completely the testing of remaining EDGs when an EDG is inoperable. Therefore, the licensee's proposed change to TS 3.9.E.1 on page 3.9/4.9-3 is unacceptable and has been denied.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve change to 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 and changes to the surveillance require-ments. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no signifi-cant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no signifi-cant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amend-ments 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 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.?2(b) no environmental impact state-ment nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
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 these amendments will not he inimical to the common l
defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
- 0. Chopra, T. Rotella l
Dated: January 21, 1987 J