ML20236B617
| ML20236B617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Morgan W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B620 | List: |
| References | |
| 5576K, NUDOCS 8903210190 | |
| Download: ML20236B617 (3) | |
Text
,
..y j
At.
.'7 f ir ',
,b 4
jfc-x
. Commonwealth Edison
-r Tone First NationIl Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
.e
, 3' D % Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 '
. Chicago, liknols 60690, I
March 10, 1989 n,
J
=4
'- U.S.' _ Nublear Regulatory Commission
-ATTN 41 Document. Control Desk
- Washington','DC.20555 Subjects LaSalle County Station. Units 1-and
- 2
. Supplement to Application.for Amendment to-Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and
.. NPF-18, Appendix'A, Technical Specifications Proposal-to Delete'the 3.25 Limitation from the Refuel Outage Interval Surveillance
.HFC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a):
C.M.~ Allen letter to U.S. NRC dated-December 4, 1987..
- s.,
Gentlemen Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Commonwealth Edison applied for an amendment.
to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18, Appendix-A,. Technical Speelfications, Heference (a).
The purpose of this amendment request was to eliminate the provisions of Section 4.0'.2.b'of the Technical Specifications applying to refuel. outage interval surveillance.
~
, v Per discussions with NRR,.It was concluded that the original amendment request should be supplemented with a' mod 8Elcation that would-greater benefit the licensee, j
Atta'hment.A contains: background.Information and' justification for the c
proposed' change.
AttachmentB contalns the proposed change to the Technical Specifications..The proposed change has been reviewed.and approved by both On-Site and Off-Site Review in accordance with Commonwealth Edison Company procedures. This amendment request has been evaluated in accordance with 10
. j CFR 50.92(c) and it.was determined that no significant hazards consideration exists. That evaluatlon-In documente: in Att achment C.
P I
r__
.g U.S.-NRC -
March 10, 1989 Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of our
- application for t.his amendment by transmitting a copy of this letter and its attachments to the designated State Official.
Please direct any questions you may have regarding this matter to this office.
Very truly yours, l
l l
W.
E. Morgan Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachments At Backgrottnd and Discussion B
Proposed Technical Specification Change C
Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideration cc LaSalle Senior Resident Inspector P. Shemanski - NRR Office of Nuclear Facility Safety - IDNS Regional Administrator'- Region III q
i l
SUEJCRIBED'AND S O N to bef ejmet s/.. day of _., d_A_C -
1989 1
0 Notary Public I
5576K 1
4
+<.
I4
' l 1
ATTACHMENT A" IECHtllCAL_SEICIFICATIDtLCilANGE REOUEEI LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 BACXGROUND Proposed changes to the Technical Specification were submitted (Reference (a)) which would remove the limitation on the combined time interval for any qhree (3) consecutive surveillance intervals that is not to.
I exceed 3.25 times lhe 18 month surveillance interval for surveillance that are performed during refueling outages.
)
Per discussion with NRR, it was concluded that the greater benefit to
}{
safety would be obtained by removal of the 3.25 limitation for all'survell-lances, not just those associated with refueling outages that are specified with an 18 month surveillance interval.
LaSalle is supplementing its original-mnendment request to revise Technical Specification 4.0.2 and its Bases.
In its application to refueling outage surveillance, the use of the
'25 percent allowance'for extending surveillance intervals can have a safety a
I benefit when it is used during plant operation. When plant conditions are not suitable for the conduct of surveillance due to safety systems being out-of-service for maintenance or due to other ongoing surveillance activities,
' safety is enhanced by the use of the allowance that permits a surveillance
[
interval.(up to 25% extension) would exceed the risk' reduction derived-by
~
l conforming to the 3.25 limitation. Normal scheduling would still be at the specified survelliance interval.
\\
5776K l
L[
1