ML20236T807

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Addl Info Re Author 870918 Proposed Amend to Cycle 10 Reload & Author Providing Suppl Info,Per NRC Request.Concurrence W/Nrc Suggested Rev Concerning Operation W/Inoperable Relief Valves
ML20236T807
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/25/1987
From: Silady J
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20236T809 List:
References
NUDOCS 8712020105
Download: ML20236T807 (3)


Text

-...

1 Commonw:cith Edison g_f One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois v

Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 y

Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767 -

l l

)

Novembe'r 25, 1987 I

~Mr. Thomas E.'Murley, Director 4

Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-j

Subject:

Quad Cities Station Unit 1 Supplemental Reload Licensing Information for Cycle 10 NRC Docket No. 50-254 References (a): Letter from J. A. Silady to T. E. Murley dated September 18, 1987 transmitting proposed amendment for Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 10 Reload i

(b): Letter.from J. A. Silady to T. E. Murley dated October 13, 1987 providing supplemental information on the subject reload.

1

Dear Mr. Murley:

The three attachments to this'1etter document additional information requested by your staff subsequent'to the Reference (a) and.(b) transmittals concerning the Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle'10 Reload, j

Attachment A documents our concurrence with a revision. requested by

)

the NRC Staff to previously proposed Technical Specification provisions concerning operation with inoperable relief valves. The CECO safety evaluation previously performed and the No Significant Hazards Consideration provided in Reference (d) remain applicable.

Attachment B describes the method to be utilized to limit the Rod Block Monitor setpoint when operating in the Increased Core Flow region.

L D

B712020105 871125 h

PDR ADOCK 05000254 X

t p

PDR

. Attachment C confirms that station procedures require surveillance of core plate differential pressure.

Please contact this office should further information be required.

Very truly yours,

~d J. A. Silady Nuclear Licensing Administrator Attachments cc: Region III Inspector - Quad Cities T. Ross - NRR l

M. C. Parker - IDNS 1

l SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to j

befo;'e me-this :Wd' day j

of, DF2et.v n< / u r, 1987 l

'7?On Y Adm)

Nota (y Public Y

l l

l 3859K/bs 1

l l

r Attachment A Restriction Concerning Relief Valves Out of Service A revision was requested by the NRC Staff to the Technical Specification changes previously proposed by CECO in Reference (a) for Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 10.

The revision was discussed in a teleconference with the NRC on November 2, 1987. CECO departments involved in the call were Nuclear Licensing, Quad Cities Technical Staff and Nuclear Puel Services.

The revision deletes the words "or more" from proposed specifications 3.5.D.2 and 4.5.D.4.

See the attached mark-up. As with the Reference (a) changes, the station may operate indefinitely with one relief l

valve inoperable, or for seven days with two relief valves inoperable and HPCI demonstrated to be operable. However, with three or more valves inoperable the unit must shut down to below 90 psig reactor pressure within J

24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This revision is based on the Staff's reluctance to credit HPCI operability in place of the pressure relief valves. It was indicated that j

the relief valves are the means of depressurization to be credited for small break LOCA and transients such as loss of feedwater. Although CECO believes that HPCI and RCIC provide adequate high pressure cooling and depressurization capability for short periods of multiple relief valve inoperability, it was agreed that the revision was acceptable.

It was also noted that the change is not substantial, and is more conservative than the originally proposed provision for short term inoperability of multiple valves.

Due to the mere restrictive nature of the requested revision, the safety evaluation and no significant hazards consideration previously performed and documented in Reference 1 remain applicable and bound the revised wording of specifications 3.5.D.2 and 4.5.D.4.

_