ML20057A359
| ML20057A359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057A357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309140074 | |
| Download: ML20057A359 (3) | |
Text
,
l i
l gancu l
[g, gif(%
., e l
E UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l'
5
- Q g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
=...*
i I
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO. 75 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.- NPF-18 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
tASALLE COUNTY STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 1
l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 2, 1993. Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for LaSalle J
County Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would change the Snubter Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions in TS surveillance i
requirements 4.7.9.b and 4.7.9.c to the alternative requirements provided in Generic Letter (GL) 90-09, " Alternative Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions," dated _ December 11, 1990. The associated TS Bases would j
also be modified to reflect the TS change. Additionally, minor changes would be made to TS 4.7.9.e to remove a reference to the first refueling outage and l
a footnote referencing Cycle 2.
i l
)
)
2.0 EVALUATION l
i The snubber visual examination schedule in the existing TS, is based on the l
permissible number of inoperable snubbers found during the visual examination.
i Because the existing snubber visual examination schedule is based only on the absolute number of inoperable snubbers found during the visual ' examinations l
irrespective of the total population of snubbers, licensee's with a large snubber population find the visual examination schedule excessively restric-tive. The purpose of the alternative visual examination schedule is to allow the licensee to perform visual examinations and corrective actions during plant outages without reduction of the confidence level provided by the existing visual examination schedule. The new visual examination schedule specifies the permissible number of inoperable snubbers for various snubber populations.
The basic examination interval is the normal fuel cycle up to 24 months.
This' interval may be extended to as long as twice the fuel cycle or reduced to as small as two-thirds of the fuel cycle depending on the number of unacceptable snubbers found during the visual examination.
The examination interval may vary by +25 percent to coincide with the actual outage.
In the event one or more snubbers are found inoperable during a visual examination, the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) in the present TS require the licensee to restore or replace the inoperable snubber (s) to operable statur within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or declare the attached system inoperable and 9309140074 930901 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
PDR-
.,. - _, +_,
a
~
a w.-_
m m.-
i i
l t
follow the appropriate action statement for that system. This LCO will remain j
in the TS; however, the permissible number of inoperable snubber (s) and the subsequent visual examination interval will now be determined in accordance l
with the new visual examination schedule (Table 4.7-2 of Enclosure B of GL i
90-09). As noted in the guidance for this line item TS-improvement, certain corrective actions may have to be performed depending on the number of inoperable snubbers found. All requirements, for corrective actions and evaluations associated with the use of the visual examination schedule and stated in the footnotes I thru 6, (Table 4.7-2 of Enclosure B of GL 90-09) shall be included in the TS.
l
\\
The licensee has proposed changes to TS 4.7.9 that are consistent with the i
guidance provided in GL 90-09 for the replacement of the snubber visual examination schedule with Table 4.7-2 of Enclosure B (including footnotes 1 thru 6) of GL 90-09. On the basis of its review of this matter, the staff l
finds that these proposed TS changes are consistent with GL 99-09 and, therefore, are acceptable.
The licensee's proposal included changes to the Bases for TS 4.7.9 to support the alternative snubber visual examination frequency described above. The j
staff has reviewed the proposed Bases changes and, since they are consistent i
with the TS change described above, finds them acceptable.
In addition to the changes to the snubber visual inspection schedule, the licensee is proposing minor changes to Section 4.7.9.e of both Units I and 2 TS. The licensee's proposal removes wording related to the first refueling l
shutdown from the specification for both units, since the current surveillance frequency is at least once per 18 months. The proposal also removes footnote
"*" from Section 4.7.9.e of Unit 1 TS, because Unit 1 is past Cycle 2; it's i
currently in Cycle 6.
The staff has reviewed these proposed changes and, l
since they remove references that are no longer applicable, finds these changes acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component-located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no 1
significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards 3
consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding 1
1 l
i i
l (58 FR 36431). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for l
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR l
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
l
5.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, l
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 l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Rajan: EMEB Date:
September 1, 1993
,