ML20149H554
| ML20149H554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149H322 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802190327 | |
| Download: ML20149H554 (2) | |
Text
.
/pmeg\\
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
'{
. wAsmwatow o.c.aosu
\\,*****/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.108 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-39 C0fm0NWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-295 I
)
INTRODUCTION On November 20, 1986, during an outage of Zion Unit 1, two inaccessible hydraulic shock suppressors (snubbers) were found with their fluid ports uncovered.
In accordance with section 4.22.2.A.2 of the Zion Technical Specifications (ZTS), these snubbers were considered inoperable for the purpose of establishing the visual inspection interval.
With two inoperable sncbbers, section 4.22.2.A.1 of the ZTS requires the subsequent visual inspection to be conducted within 12 months (plus or minus 25%).
Since the Unit 1 inaccessible snubber visual inspection was completed on November 20, 1986, the next inspection is required to be conducted between August 20, 1987 and February 20, 1988.
Unit 1, however, is currently scheduled to be at power during that interval and stay at power until the next refueling outage which is scheduled to begin approximately 30 days after the inspection "window". Without this one-time amendment, a unit shutdown would be required to perform this inspection.
In summary, this proposed one-time change to TS would permit Unit 1 inspection to be delayed approximately 30 days.
DISCUSSION The frequency of visual inspections of shock suppressors is specified in section 4.22.2.A.1 of the ZTS. The inspection period is coupled to the number of snubbers found inoperable during the previous inspection.
The larger the j
number of inoperable snubbers the shorter the period to the next inspection.
Section 4.22.2. A.1 does not specify a rigidly defined inspection schedule, but rather it requires the inspection to be performed within certain "window" equal in size to one half of the inspection period (period plus or minus 25%).
l The reasons for this leeway in the surveillance frequency are the recognition i
l of operational constraints of plants and the acknowledgement that the level of snubber protection is not very sensitive to small variations in the frequency i
of visual inspections, providing that they are performed at reasonably spaced l
intervals.
TN delay of 30 days lengthens the inspection period by approximately 8%, which is not a significant widening of the inspection l
"window" and would not significantly affect the assurance that the snubbers t
are providing a constant level of protection.
8802190327 080205 PDR ADOCK 05000295 P
PDR j
i I
! TECHNICAL FINDING i
The staff concludes that this proposed one-tine change does not significantly affect the level of snubber protection, and that unit shutdown solely to perform the visual test 30 days earlier is not warranted.
The staff finds the proposed one-time change acceptable.
ENVIR0hMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. The i
staff has determined that this emendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no 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 Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendrent meets the eligibility criteria for categoricai exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 this amendment.
CONCLUSION 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 conpliance 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.
Principal Contributor:
J. Norris Dated:
February 5, 1988 l
.)
I h
I 6
l
.__m_..