ML20213G501

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 94 & 90 to Licenses DPR-19 & DPR-25,respectively

ML20213G501
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	11/10/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20213G495	List: ML20213G501
References
NUDOCS 8611180160
Download: ML20213G501 (2)

Text

-.

p rego

[(g 9.

UNITED STATES h

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G

E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

%.....)

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NL' CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION St!PPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 94 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-19 AND AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO FA'CILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25 COPONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-237/249 1.0 INTRODllCTION Ry a letter dated January 20, 1986 as supplemented by a letter dated July 29, 1986, Consonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) proposed to amend Appendix A of Provisional Operating License (POL) No. DPR-19 and Facility Operating License No. DPR-25. The letters provided information to support changes which were primarily to correct typographical errors, changes in nomenclature, sentence structure and references to improve Technical Specification (TS) clarity with the exception of a change for Dresden Unit 3 to allow post-maintenance testing of control rod drives in the refuel mode with low pressure cooling systems inoperable. This change was approved on April 16, 1975 for Dresden 2 in Amendment 6 to POL No.

DPR-19. The July 29, 1986 letter also revised Table 3.7.1 of Appendix A of both licenses to reflect the results of minor appropriate plant modifications recently implemented to bring the units into compliance with staff recommendatior.s in NUREG-0619, "RWR Feedwater and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking."

2.0 EVALUATION The staff has carefully examined the TS pages submitted ~by the licensee which reflect correc'tions to typographical errors, changes in nomenclature, sentence structure and references and finds that the changes improve the clarity of the TS without changing the technical content. They are, therefore, acceptable.

The licensee attached to the January 20, 1986 letter a copy of the April 16, testing of control rod drives in the refuel mode (perform post-maintenance 1975 amendment package allowing Dresden Unit 2 to following achievement of cold shutdown) with low pressure cooling systems inoperable provided that no work is being done which has the potential for draining the reactor vessel.

The staff reviewed this package and finds it supports the licensee's request for an identical change for Dresden Unit 3 and that the revisions to Dresden Unit 3's TS documenting this are acceptable.

During the recent Dresden Unit 3 recirculation pipe replacement outage, the Control Rod Drive (CRD) return line to the reactor vessel was permanently removed from inside containment and the containment 8611180160 861110 PDR ADOCK 05000237 P

PDR

n 1

9

. I penetration was capped. Outside containment, the pipe was cut and the necessary caps installed. This deleted CRD valve 3-0301-98 and isolated

)

CRD valve 3-0301-95 from primary containment. Since these valves no longer serve as primary containment isolation valves for Unit 3, they are being removed from Dresden 3 TS Table 3.7.1.

The staff finds this acceptable.

The CRD return line for Dresden Unit 2 is always valved out via the two CRD return check valves 2-0301-95 and 2-0301-98. Table 3.7.1 of the Dresden Unit 2 TS is being changed to reflect their normal position as closed. The staff finds that this meets the recommendations in NUREG-0619 and is, therefore, acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

These amendments involve changes to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no signifi-cant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.

Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for cateaorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement 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 be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

R. Gilbert Dated: November 10, 1986 l

- _ - _,