ML20244D865
| ML20244D865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D863 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904240163 | |
| Download: ML20244D865 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _.
1-
. e n, o
UNITED STATES
^! '
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY-EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.116TO FACILITY OPERATING. LICENSE.NO. DPR-29 AND AMENDMENT N0.112 TO FACILITY-OPERATING -LICENSE NO..DPR-30 i:
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY A,3 IOWA-ILLIN0IS. GAS AND. ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-254/265
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 19, 1989, CommonwealthEdisonCompany(CECO,the licensee) proposed to amend Technical Specifications (TS) for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS) regarding surveillance requirements for C0 fire 2
hoses. Existing TS 4.12.E. does not differentiate between the two' types of fire hose stations that exist at QCNPS (i.e. water and CO,3 hoses).
Furthermore, TS do not differentiate between the kind of turveillances that are erformed on these hoses. These hoses hre constructed of differing uterials p(water hoses are composed of a woven type material while CO, hoses are made of a rubber-based material). Ceco, to date, has been conductihg the surveillance testing requirements of TS 4.12.E. only for water hoses even though TS.did not obviate this testing for CO hoses.
2 2.0 EVALUATION The purpose of CECO's amendment request was to clarify the surveillance requirements for fire hoses, specifically, for CO hoses where surveillance should have differed from what currently exists i1 QCNPS TS. This mismatch was due to an oversight which occurred during development of the fire protection TS in 1977. Technical Specification Table 3.12-4 was created to show which hose reels, due to their proximity to safety-related equipment, had to be maintained as operable.
Inclusionoftheseven(7)C0 hose reels into Table 3.12-4 was done to icentify them as reels which were fequired to be operable. However, it also mistakenly tied them into the Surveillance Requirements in Section 4.12.E. for the water-based hose stations. Surveillance requirements specifically intended for the CO hose reels, should have been 2
prescribed by TS 4.12.0., CO Systems.
2 Although the existing TS do not differentiate between the kind of surveillance testing required for CO, and water hoses, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Codet call out specific requirements for C0 hose reel surveillance activities other than those for water hose reels.2 At the time 8904240163 890413 PDR ADOCK 05000254 P
\\
' that TS Table 3.12-4 was developed, NFPA 12-1973 only called for regular inspections of the CO hoses and replacement at certain intervals in j
accordance with the l, stings of a nationally recognized testing laboratory i
(water hoses had other requirements). As a result, it may be inferred that the Surveillance Requirements of TS 4.12.E. were incorrectly applied to C0,,
hose reels by listing them in Table 3.12-4.
l QCNPS is committed to meet the requirements of the current NFPA 12, Section i
1-11.2.7 or replace the C0 hoses in accordance with the intervals specified 7
in the Code. The station Rill administratively ensure, via its surveillance tracking program, that the C0 hose surveillance are performed at the NFPA 4
specified intervals. CECoco$sidersadministrativecontrolsareadequatefo" ensuring compliance with NFPA. Consequently, there is no need to specify the f
CO, surveillance requirements in the TS. This consideration is supported by l
NRC Generic Letter 88-12 which allows a licensee to delete non-safe shutdown related fire protection equipment from the Technical Specifications. Local application of C0 is not an integral portion of the fire protection / fire 7
fighting plan at Quad Cities Station due to the acquisition of safer, more versatile fire extinguishing units. And, as such, this equipment is a candidate for deletion from TS. This new equipment, consisting of twelve (12) wheeled units, is currently serving as backup equipment to the C0 hoses 2
listed in Tabic 3.12-4 of the specifications.
Based upon the aforementioned discussion, the NRC has concluded that Ceco's amendment request for not subjecting C0 fire hose stations to +.he testing 7
requirements of TS 4.12.E. should be granted.
Furthermore, NFPA Code requirements are applicable for C0 fire hoses and can be administratively 2
controlled by plant procedures.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to the surveillance requirements of compenents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined these amendments involve no significant -increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding 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 categorical 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, (2) such
O
. activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common j.
defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Thierry Ross Dated: April 13, 1989 l
_ - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - _