ML20237H551
| ML20237H551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H531 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708250063 | |
| Download: ML20237H551 (2) | |
Text
_ _____________ _ _
[pft RfCq o
UNITED STATES 5
'#,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFI_CE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.107 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-39 AND AMENDMENT N0. 97 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-48 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
~
ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-295 AND 50-304 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 4,1986, Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) requested several changes to the plant Technical Specifications (TS) for Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding Sections 3.5 and 4.5, Reactor
/
l Containment Fan Coolers (RCFCs).
E"ALUATION Technical Specification 4.5, RCFC Surveillance Requirement currently requires each fan cooler damper to be stroked to the accident position during surveillance testing. The proposed change will allow verifying that each damper is in its accident position rather than require stroking each damper.
The reason for the TS change is to reflect the fact that the flow dampers are now permanently in their accident positions due to modifications to the RCFCs. Therefore, the staff finds that verifying damper position during surveillance testing is acceptable in lieu of stroking. Additional discussion of the RCFC modifications follows.
By letter dated March 3,1987, the licensee described the RCFC modifications.
These involved replacement of the RCFC heat exchanger, removal of the moisture separators and HEPA filters, and placement of air flow control dampers permanently in the accident mode. The new RCFC heat exchangers replaced the existing degraded servicg water cooling coil tubing and upgraded the heat removal 6
capability from 243 x 10 Btu /hr to 360 x 10 Btu /hr in the accident mode.
The licensee determined that the moisture separators and HEPA filters were unnecessary because no credit had been taken for them in the FSAR Chapter 14 safety analysis. The existing system operates with two different air flow paths: one for normal operation and one for post LOCA operations.
In the post LOCA operating mode, air flow was routed through moisture separators and HEPA filters. During normal operation, air flow bypassed the separators and filters. Since the separators and HEPA filters were eliminated as part of the 8708250063 870817 PDR ADOCK 05000P 5 P
9 RCFC modification, the containment air flow path is now the same regardless of the mode of operation. Therefore, the flow dampers were placed in a permanently fixed open position, i.e., accident mode position.
Based on the above, the staff finds the RCFC modifications acceptable.
In addition to the above, the licensee, proposed changes to TS Sections 3.5 and 4.5 to revise their format to be consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications (STS). The staff has reviewed the revisions to TS Sections 3.5 and 4.5 a.nd finds them to be consistent with the STS.
TECHNICAL FINDING Based on the above, the staff finds the proposed changes to TS 3.5 and 4.5 relative to verifying damper positions during surveillance testing and format changes to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in I
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 Commission has previously issuea 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 Sec 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.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance 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.
Dated:
August 17, 1987 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
C. Li