ML17054A451

Definition of Operable,Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1

ML17054A451
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Staffel J, Farmer F EG&G Idaho
To:	Grotenhuis M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17054A449	List: ML17054A448 ML17054A450 ML17054A451
References
CON-FIN-A-6429, TAC-43008, TAC-43042, TAC-56410, TAC-56436 EGG-EA-6360, EGG-EA-6360-DRFT, NUDOCS 8402150538
Download: ML17054A451 (10)

Text

EGG-EA-6360 SEPTEMBER 1983 DEFINITION OF OPERABLE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1

F.

G. Farmer J.

M. Stoffel idaho National Engineering Laboratory Operated by the U.S. Department of Energy l

ll

" I'

~

'L P

'P~,PP:myPPPP ~

pppapll ppppaI pppp~~

., a a

mmawpapaaa P

. wM~plpa~

~'~~K

'his is an informal report intended for use as a preliminary or working document

'8402150538 840202 "'(.,

PDR ADOCK';05000220',',,'~;,-

-, P l,."

~ ',,;,'l DR Prepared for the U,

S, NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. A6429

++EKE&Id'aho Il

EGG-EA-6360 DEFINITION OF OPERABLE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1

Published September 1983 F.

G. Farmer J.

M; Stoffel EGKG Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Responsible NRC Individual 'and Division:

R. Hermann/Di vi s ion of Licen s ing Docket No.:

50-312 TAC No.:

43042 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76I001570 FIN No. A6429

ABSTRACT This report reviews the extent of compliance of proposed and existing Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Technical Specifications with clarifications of the definition and application of the term OPERABLE which have been required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

FORWARD This report is supplied as part of the "Selected Operating Reactors Issues Program (III)" being conducted for the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Licensing, by EGEG Idaho, Inc.,

NRC Licensing Support Section.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the authorization, BKR 20 19 10 ll 1, FIN No. A6429.

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.

Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's

use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

CONTENTS 1.

INTROOUCTION.....................................................

1 2.

REVIEW CRITERIA.............................................,....

1 3

OISCUSSION.......................................................

3 4

CONCLUSIONS

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

3 5

REFERENCES...............'........................................

3 111

DEFINITION OF OPERABLE, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR;.STATION UNIT 1

1.

INTRODUCTION On April 10,

1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a

generic letter to all Power Reactor Licensees which clarified the term OPERABLE and identified portions of the Model Technical Specifications (MTS) which are recommended to assure that safety systems remain OPERABLE within the limits of the single failure criterion.

In that letter the NRC requested that Licensees review their Technical Specifications (TS) and submit such proposed changes as were necessary to incorporate the requirements. of the MTS.

On May 20,

1980, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation responded to the generic letter by proposing an amendment to the Nine Mile Point Unit 1

Technical Specifications.

EGEG Idaho, Inc.,

has reviewed the proposed 3

TS amendment and the existing TS.

This report provides an evaluation of those TS and the amendment for conformation to the criteria established by NRC.

2.

REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for this task are contained, in NRC's April 10, 1980, letter and in reference 2 and are summarized below.

Definition of OPERABLE A system, subsystem,

train, component or device shall be OPERABLE or have OPERABILITY when it is capable of performing its specified.

function(s).

Implicit in this definition shall be the assumption that all necessary attendant instrumentation,

controls, normal and emergency electrical power sources, cooling or seal water, lubrication or other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system, subsystem,

train, component or device to perform its function(s) are also capable of performing their related support function(s).

Limitin Condition for Operation When a Limiting Condition for Operation is not met because of circumstances in excess of those addressed in the specification, except as provided in the associated ACTION requirements, within one hour action shall be initiated to place the unit in a

MODE in which the Specification does not apply by placing it, as applicable, in:

.l.

At least STARTUP within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, 2.

AT least HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, and 3.

At least COLD SHUTDOWN within the subsequent 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Where corrective measures are completed that permit operation under the ACTION requirements, the ACTION may be taken in accordance with the specified time limits as measured from the time of failure to meet the Limiting Condition for Operation.

Exceptions to these requirements are stated in the individual Specifications.

When a system, subsystem, train, component or device is determined to be inoperable solely because its emergency power source is inoperable, or solely because its normal power source is inoperable, it may be considered OPERABLE for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of its applicable Limiting Condition for Operation, provided:

(a) its corresponding normal or emergency power source is OPERABLE; and (b) all of its redundant system(s),

subsystem(s),

train(s),

component(s) and device(s) are

OPERABLE, or likewise satisfy the requirements of this specification.

Unless both conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied, within two hours action shall be initiated to place the unit in at least STARTUP within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, and in at least COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

This specification is not applicable in MODES 5

or 6.

I 3.

DISCUSSION The amendment proposed by Niagara Mohawk redefines the term OPERABLE.

The new definition is almost exactly that contained in the MTS.

The proposed amendment also revises the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) to include "Operability Requirements" which are identical to those in the MTS except that, rather than specifying required reactor modes and time limits in the general "Operability Requirements,"

required modes and time limits are identified in individual, system specifications.

A review of the LCOs for individual safety systems has 'been conducted and has determined

that, as redundancy in safety systems is reduced by failure or maintenance, additional surveillance is required and time limits for return to full operability are established.

Failure to meet the time limits or 4

surveillance requirements requires the licensee to shut down within the time limits of the NRC criteria.

4.

CONCLUSION The licensee's proposed amendment to the Nine Mile Point Unit 1

TS provides adequate clarification of the term OPERABLE as it applies for ESF systems to support system outages or multiple outages of redundant components.

5.

REFERENCES 1.

NRC letter, D.

G. Eisenhut, to All Power Reactor Licensees, dated April 10, 1980.

2.

NRC internal memorandum, S. Miner to S. Varga, et al., "Definition of Operability--Multi-Plant Item 0-17", dated March 26, 1981.

3.

LeBouf, Lamb, Leiby 5 MacRae letter, E.

B. Thomas, to

NRC, H. R. Denton, dated May 20, 1980.

4.

Technical Specifications for Nine Mile Point Unit 1, revised through Amendment 45.

~

I l

"~