ML20235T377
| ML20235T377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T365 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903080258 | |
| Download: ML20235T377 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ - -
~h J
(
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
E WASHWGTON, D. C. 20655 jr J
g i
SAFETY' EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION L
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 64 TO FACILITY OPERATING' LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO.'45 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed amendment.to Operating License No. NPF-11 and Operating License No. NPF-18 would revise the LaSa11e' Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications by modifying the table of primary containment. isolation valves to identify new excess' flow check valves being installed during the'second refuel outage.
These valves are.being-added as part of a modification to improve the reactor water level instrumentation system as required by NUREG-0737, Item II.F.2 and Generic Letter 84-23.
In addition,. Amendment No. 64 to Operating License No.
NPF-11 removes NPF-11 License Condition 2.C.(18(c) and Amendment No. 45 to Operating License No. NPF-18 removes' License Condition 2.C.(30)(1) both of-which are now obsolete.
2.0 Evaluation Generic Letter 84-23 indicated a'large error could occur in indicated reactor vessel' water level under certain accident conditions. 'This potential error was required to be eliminated by improvements to existing instrumentation by NUREG-0737, II.F.2.
This requirement was made part of the Unit 1 license in LicenseCondition2.C.(30)(i)andpartoftheUnit2licenseinLicense Condition 2.C.(18)(c).
. Commonwealth Edison (Ceco) provided a response to Generic Letter 84-23 in a letter dated June 10,'1986 in which certain design changes were proposed to correct this problem. The NRC staff accepted the CECO proposed solution in a letter dated March 2, 1987.
Installation of the proposed modification has resulted in two additional instrument lines which pass through the primary containment in existing containment penetrations. General Design Criteria 55 requires the use of isolation devices for these lines. Excess flow check valves and manual isolation valves were installed outside the containment to perform this function. The excess flow check valves acting as automatic primary containment-isolation valves must be added to Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1.
The proposed Technical Specification amendment adds the excess flow check valves installed as automatic' isolation devices to Table 3.6.3-1.
These 8903080258 890207 3
fDR ADOCK 050003'73 PDC g
l L
l valves are designated as IB21-F570 and 1821-F571 for Unit I and 2B21-F570 and 2821-F571 for Unit 2.
These changes to the Technical Specifications are administrative in nature resulting from the excess flow check valve modification which was approved by NRC in a letter to CECO dated March 2, 1987. The staff I
finds the proposed amendment to be acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative pr'ocedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(gibility c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 Conclusion The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (53FR32291)onAugust 24, 1988 and (53 FR 34601) on September'7, 1988 and consulted with the state of Illinois. No public comments were received, and the state of Illinois did not have any coments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public 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 or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
Letters from C. Allen, Commonwealth Edison to USNRC dated May 25 and August 9, 1988.
Principal Contributor: Paul Shemanski, NRR/PDIII-2 Dated:
February 7, 1989
^
___________-_--___-___a