ML20150F060

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 109 & 98 to Licenses DPR-39 & DPR-48,respectively

ML20150F060
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	03/28/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20150F023	List: ML20150F020 ML20150F049 ML20150F060
References
NUDOCS 8804040253
Download: ML20150F060 (2)

Text

.

g%

+ UNITED STATES

[ > r. g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-o,

-la WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

%, .....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.109 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0 3 0PR-39 AND ,

AMENDMENT N0. 98 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-48 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-295 AiiD 50-304

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On December 9,1987, the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) submitted a reouest to upgrade Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 program for verifying the existence of adequate battery capacity. As a result of a telephone conference with the staff held on February 5,1988. CECO modified its request by letter dated February 11, 1988. The amendment request proposes (1) performance of a new Battery Service Test, which is presently not required by the Zion Technical Specifications, (2) changing the frequency of the Performance Discharge Test from every refueling to every 60 months and, (3) addition of a definition of battery degradation, which presently is not addressed in Zion Technical Specifications. All these requests are in conformance with NUREG-0452, Revision 4 Standard Technical Specifications.

2.0 EVALUATION Section 4.15.1.E of Zion Technical Specifications presently does not require performance of the Battery Service Test (BST) and relies instead on the Performance Discharge Test (PDT) which is administered once per 18 months, during shutdown. While the PDT detennines the overall battery capacity, the proposed BST will verify, every refueling, the battery's ,

ability to supply its emergency loads. This proposal is in conformance  ;

with the surveillance requirements of Section 4.8.2.1.d of NUREG-0452,  !

Revision 4 Standard Technical Specifications and, therefore, is acceptable. l The Performance Discharge Test presently required to be perfonned once every refueling, is proposed to be performed once every 60 months, or after degradation, or when the battery has reached 85% of its service life. This proposal is in conformance with surveillance requirements of Section 4.8.2.1.e of NUREG-0452, Revision 4. Standard Technical Specifications and, therefore, is acceptable.

The new definition of battery degradation, which is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% of rated capacity from its average I on previous performance tests, or is below 90% of the manufacturer's l rating, is in agreement with the requirement of Section 4.8.2.1.f of I NUREG-0452, Revision 4. Standard Technical Specifications and, therefore. '

is acceptable.

8804040253 080328 5 ADOCK 050 gDR

2 3.0 TECHNICAL FINDING Since all parts of the proposed amendment meet the requirements of the Standard Technical Specifications, the staff finds them acceptable and recommends that the amendment request be granted.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

l These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the )

facilities component located with the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be releaseo offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed  ;

finding that 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will no be inimical to the common defense and security'or to the health and safety of the public.

1 l

Principal Contributor: Jan A. Norris, NRR/PDIII-2 Dated: March 28,1988 l

l l

I

T spja 1

- ____