ML20035E856
| ML20035E856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035E845 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304190331 | |
| Download: ML20035E856 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ - _ _ -
/
o, UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMOtON a
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 4
e.,
8
%..... /
SAF(TY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.144 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-39 AND AMENDMENT NO.133 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-48 COMMONWEALTH EDlSON COMPANY ZION NtlCLEAR F0WER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-295 AND 50-304
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 5, 1992, Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco, the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Zion Nuclear Power Station's Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would modify the remedial action requirements of the TS by deleting alternate train testing requirements.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's current TS require a test of the alternate train when the opposite train is inoperable (" alternate train testing"). This results in both trains being inoperable and forces a loss of an important safety function during the test, e h that a plant shutdown may have to b? initiated.
The staff's position that equipment is inoperable when it is removed from service, and remains inoperable and incapable of performing its safety function during performance of a surveillance test. This position is restated in Generic Letter 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Non-conforming Conditions and on Operability," dated November 7, 1991.
j The alternate train testing requirement was included in the licensee's TS during the plant licensing phase. The original purpose was to provide a positive demonstration that a complete loss-of-safety function had not occurred when one train of equipment became, or was found to be, inoperable.
It was later realized that the assurance added by testing is not sufficient to justify the complete, intu.tional, loss of safety function during the test, provided required periodic surveillance testing is current and there are no known reasons to suggest that the alternate train is inoperable. Components for which the specified surveillance testing has been performed satisfactorily at the required frequency are considered >perable and the failure of a component in an opposite train does not necessarily result in a reduced level of confidence in the unaffected train's availability. The requirement for alternate train testing is not included in the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1431, dated September,1992, and has not been included in newly issued plant-specific TS for several years.
9304190331 930407 yDR ADOCK 05000295 PDR
4 l
5 I
= :
With the licensee's concurrence, the staff made two changes to the amendment.
A typographical error was corrected in Limiting Condition for Operation 3.8.6.D.
And, in Bases 3.8, an additional sentence was added to recognize that testing of the alternate train is not required provided the periodic surveillance testing of the alternate train is current and there is
[
no reason to suggest that the alternate train is inoperable, r
Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff finds that deleting the alternate train testing requirements from the TS is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSU(TATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State official i
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change surveillince requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off-site, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a I
proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consider-ation, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 12258).
Accordingly, the 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
i l
The Commission 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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Y. Shiraki Date:
April 7, 1993
-