ML20235B718
Text
- 'c,, " "! *,-
,4 y d Eh 3K
' i,,
RANDOLPH dd s.
n
- r Commonwealth Edison Company w
- / 2 WEST ADAMEB STREET
- C H I C A G O.
SLLINOIS 60690 November 10, 1967 s
s Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing
( g $[O\\
- '^
U. S. Atopic Energy Commission
/
Washington, D.C. 205 45 h.c. '
{
p-
^,ubject;'
Amendment No.-5 to Qun.d-Cities Statio M
Units 1 and 2. Dkts 70-2547and 50-265 p
U Deat Dr.
arris:
. Regulato{ Suppl nie Cy.'
Commonwealth Edison Company respectfully submits, pursuant to the requirements.of paragraphs 50.59 and 50.90 of the United States Atomic Energy Commission regulations 10 CFR 50, an amendment revising the applications for construction and operation of Quad-cities Station, Units 1 on 2 (Dkts 50-254 and 50-265 respectively) approved for construc wn by issuances of. Permits CPPR-23 and CPPR-24 respectively.
The suppression chamber of the primary containment for Units I ad 2 4 described and analyzed in Quad-Cities Plant Design and j
O
!ysi eport (PDAR), as amended, fileo in said dockets include J
~
ta ir ructural members known and referred to as baffles.
On the is c
- he attached report, Corumonwealth Edison Company hereby
.j t eval of t ne debtlon or omission of the baffles from the n
.gn Quad-Cities Units 1 and 2 for the following reasons:
1 - The suppression chamber design pressure is now 02 psig rather than 35 psig as originally proposed for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 (Dkts 50-237 and 50-249).
Therefore, even if the observnd overpressure were to occur, the design pressure of the suppression chamber would not be exceeded.
2 - Evidence exists that the overpressure would not occur in the full scale suppression chatnber.
3 - The baffles are not required to prevent any fluid perturbations.
i Timely approval of this request would be appreciated since i
it will affect the current construction schedule of Quad-Cities Unit 2.
It is contemplated that the baffles would be removed from quad-Cities Unit I at some time in the future.
k w
c, V
G709240202 e70921 PDR FDIA g
.. N MCNZB7-111 PDR V5 A 1 *h -
d76/
g.
,gp
4 Dr.' Peter A. Morris 2-November 10, 1957 Based upon the evaluation in the attached report ;the applicant' concludes that the proposed change in design does not involveLan unreviewed, safety question because the probability of occurrence of an accident previously analyzed in the.PDAR has not
' increased; nor would'the consequences of an accident previously analyzed in the PDAR be increased; nor would the possibility for a nuclear accident of different type than analyzed in the PDAR be i
l created.
If further details are required, please contact me or Mr. John 11. Ilughes at RAndolph 6-1200, Extension 2164 or 3500.
Very truly yours, W.
B. Behnke, Jr.
Assistant to the President Subscribed and sworp to befo e me }his /nN day of mA
_', 1'307.
.4 I
h Notary Public
__- -__ _ ____.__