ML20210R563
| ML20210R563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210R494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702170443 | |
| Download: ML20210R563 (2) | |
Text
_
. ~. -. _ -.
> p# ElCg i..
E(
Ig UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
^j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 cl,
\\..... *#p SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 6
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 30 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-18 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 16, 1986, Commonwealth Edison Company proposed to 1
change the Technical Specifications for the La Salle County Station Unit 2 to incorporate the fine motion control rod drive (FMCRD) demonstration test and to reflect the requirements stated in the staff evaluation in a letter dated August 15, 1986, for a General Electric (GE) Topical Report entitled "LaSalle Unit 2 Fine Motion Control Rod Drive Demonstration Test Description NED0-31130", see Enclosure.
The proposed plant modification and the proposed FMCR0 demonstration test for one cycle of operation at la Salle Unit 2 was reviewed and approved by the staff. The proposed test will consist of replacing an existing peripheral locking piston control rod drive (LPCRD) module with a FMCR0 module during one plant fuel cycle. The purpose of the test is to demon-strate the capability of the FMCRD module in a reactor environment. The 2
scram and step movement of LPCRD is accomplished entirely by hydraulic j
mechanisms, whereas the FMCRD scram function is accomplished hydraulically and by means of an electrical motor, which also serves to move the FMCR0 in steps. At the end of the test period, the FMCRD will be removed for inspection and the plant will be restored to its pretest configuration.
2.0 EVALUATION i
l The proposed amendment incorporates three Special Test Exceptions (STE) 3/4.10.8, 3/4.10.9 and 3/4.10.10 which are necessary to allow testing of the FMCRD at core location 02-43. This peripheral location, having a low reactivity worth of less than 0.5 percent delta k/k during the second fuel i
cycle, was specifically chosen in order to avoid any reactivity safety concern.
Special Test Exception 3/4.10.8 allows bypass of the FMCRD in the Rod Sequence i
Control System IRSCSI and programming out of the Rod Worth Minimizer IRWM1; STE 3/4.10.9 provides for determination of the Shutdown Margin with an increased allowance for the withdrawn worth of the FNCRD; and STE 3/4.10.10 provides for disarming the FMCR0 motor electrically in case of not meeting the shutdown margin requirement. The Operational Conditions applicable to the Technical Specifications 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.7 are marked with footnotes
,to reflect incorporation of these exceptions. The Technical Specification 3.9.1 is modified to assure that the core alterations for control rods other than the FMCRD can proceed only after the FMCRD is fully inserted and its i
motor disamed electrically.
l l
8702170443 870209 DR ADOOK 0500 4
l
~
- The proposed license amendment would modify the following Technical Specifications related to Reactivity Control System, Refueling Operations, and Special Test Exceptions:
(3.1.1,3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.7f 3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.2, 3.9.1, 3/4.10.8 (new) 3/4.10.9 (new) 3/4.10.10 (new)).
The staff reviewed the licensee's proposed Technical Specification changes.
which accommodate the La S:lle County Station Unit 2 FMCRD demonstration test.
Based on this review and the results of the staff review on the GE Topical Report, as indicated by the enclosure, the staff has found the proposed Technical Specification changes are consistent with the staff requirements and concludes that these Technical Specification changes are implementation of its review of the La Salle Unit 2 demonstration test.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation and use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this amendment involves 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 or cumula-tive occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accord-ingly, this amendment meets the elicibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (51FR40277)onWednesday, November 5,1986,andconsultedwith the state of Illinois. No public connents were received, and the state of Illinois did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthepublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regula-tions and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Enclosure:
As stated i
Principal Contributor:
T. Huang, Reactor System Branch Dated:
February 9,1987