ML17258A531

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 48 to License DPR-18

ML17258A531
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	02/03/1982
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17258A530	List: ML17258A528 ML17258A531 ML20040G450
References
NUDOCS 8202160047
Download: ML17258A531 (13)

Text

'gS AEOii O~

~>>*<<<<

i

~

~

UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISStON WASHINGTON,D. C 20555 ROCHESTER GAS.AND El ECTRIC CORPORATION DOCKET HO. 50-244 R. E.

GINNA NUCLEAR'POWER PLANT ANEHDHEHT TO PROYISIOHAL OPERATIHG LICENSE Amendment Ho.

48 :

License Ho. DPR-18 C,.

D.

Huclear Regulatory Commission '(the Comission) has'found that:

The application for amendment by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (the licensee) notarized January 14, 1982 (transmitted by letter dated January 14, 1982),

complies with the standards and requirements 'of

'he Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and.the Commission's rules and"regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;

'he fa ility will opera.e in conformity with the applicat',on,

.he provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activiti'es authorized by this amendment can be conduc ed without endangering the health-

'nd safety cf the public; and {ii) ~hat such activities will be conduCted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of tbe public; and The issuance of his amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

'aoaziooe7"BV0ZOS PDR ADOCK 05000244 I p PDR

4 va

'I

~ ~

~

~

~...

2 2.

Accordingly, the.license is amended by changes to the Technioal Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this licensh=-

amendment a'nd Paragraph 2.C(2) of Provisional Operating License No. DPR-18 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Technical Specifications The. Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A as revised through Amendment No. 48, are hereby incorporated in the license.

The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical

'pecifications.

~.'

3.

This license amendment. becomes effective on January 13, 1982 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance:

February 3, 1982 Dennis M. Crutchfield, ief Operating Reactors Branch f5 Division of Licensing

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. '48 PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO.

DPR-18

'OCKET NO. 50-244 Revise Appendix A Technical Specifications by removing the pages identified below and inserting the enclosed pages.

The revised pages contain the captioned amendment number and marginal lines which indicate the area of changes.

PAGES 3 ~ 3 3 3.3-4

~\\

3.3.1.2 During power operation, the requirements of 3.3.F 1 may be modified to allow components to be inoperable at any one time.

More than one component may be in-operable at any one time provided that one train of the ECCS is operable.

Ef the requirements of 3.3. 1. 1 are not satisfied within the time period specified

below, the reactor shall be placed in hot shutdown within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and at T

< 350 F in an additional avg 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

'a ~

b.

One accumulator may be inoperable or isolated for a period of up to one hour.

One safety injection pump may be out of service provided the pump is restored to operable status C ~

within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

The other two safety injection pumps shall be tested to demonstrate operability prior to initiating repair of the inoperable pump.

One residual heat removal pump may be out of service provided the pump is restored to operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

The other residual heat removal pump shall be tested to demonstrate opera-bility prior to initiating repair of the inoperable pump.

3 ~ 3 3

Amendment No.

48

d.

One residual heat exchanger may be out of service for a period of no more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

e.

Any valve, interlock, or piping required for the functioning of one safety injection train and/or one low head safety injection train (RHR) may be inoperable provided repairs are completed within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

Prior to initiating valve repairs, all valves in the system that provide the duplicate function shall be tested to demonstrate operability.

Power may be restored to any valve referenced in 3.3.1.1 g for the purposes of valve testing providing no more than one such valve has power restored and provided testing is completed and power removed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

ge Those check valves specified in 3.3.1.1 i may

~

be inoperable (greater than 5.0 gpm leakage) provided.the inline MOVs are de-energized closed and repairs are completed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

3 ~ 3 ~ 1 ~ 3 Except during dies 1 generator load and safeguard sequence testing or when the vessel head is removed or the steam generator manway is open, no more than one safety injection pump shall be operable whenever the temperature of one or more of the RCS cold legs is

< 330oF

~

3'-1

~ 3 ~ 1 lfhenever only one safety injection pump may be operable by 3.3.1.3, at least two of the three safety injection pumps shall be demonstrated inoperable a minimum of once per twelve hours by verifying that the control switches are in the pull-stop position.

3 ' '

3-3

~ 2 ~ 1 Containment Cooling and Iodine Removal The reactor shall not be made critical except for low temperature physics tests, unless the following conditions are met:

a ~

The spray additive tank contains not less than 4500 gallons of solution with a sodium hydroxide concentration of not less than 30% by weight.

b.

At least two containment spray pumps are operable.

C

~

Four fan cooler, units are operable.

3'-4 Amendment No. ~ ~ 84, "8

gp,A REC(

o 0O o 'W

'(

Cy

~0

++**+

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 48 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-18 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION R.

E.

GINNA.NUCLEAR'OWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application notarized January 14, 1982 (submitted by letter dated January 14, 1982), Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RGEE) requested changes to the Technical Specifications for the R.

E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

'These changes would revise the specifications dealing with the availability of components in the Safety Injection and Residual Heat Removal (RRR) Systems.

2.0 BACKGROUND

During routine surveillance, two pinhole leaks were discovered in the RHR pump suction piping from one of the containment sumps.

In order to repair the system the affected RHR pump and one of the two Reactor Coolant Drain Tank (RCDT) pumps had to be isolated..

This would be in violation of the technical specifications that require testing the other RHR pump and both of the RCDT pumps to demonstr ate their operability.

Emergency relief from this technical specification requirement was gr anted by our telephone authorization given January 13, 1982 (confirmed by our letter dated January 15, 1982),

as requested by RG&E's letter telecopied to us on January 13, 1982.

The application notorized January 14, 1982 (submitted by letter dated January 14, 1982), is the formal request for this technical specification change.

3. 0 EVALUATION The proposed change would clarify existing Technical Specifications.

Specification 3.3.1.2, which addresses requirements in the event of ECCS subsystem inoperability, would be revised to eliminate. requirements not based on safety analyses and to address all portions of the ECCS including piping.

The requirements regarding number of inoperable components is restated to ensure that one train is always operable.

This restatement is necessary as a result of implementing the definition of "operability" as described

)~

I pb

+'

t

~

Ogl

~

~lf g I

C in RGEE's letter dated May 5, 1981.

The time period for corrective action is restated and is consistent with accepted licensing practices.

The specified time period remains, short such that the likelihood of requiring remaining operable equipment is small.

The requirement for RCDT pump operability in the event of a RHR

'pump inoperability has been deleted.

'The RCDT pumps are not required to satisfy any safety analysis assumptions.

While 'they c'ould provide added redundancy, they are substantially smaller than the RHR pumps so they cannot provide a comparable level of decay heat removal.

Inoperability of piping and interlocks is added to the specificati'on for completeness and the specifications are clarified to address only that portion of the RHR system required for the low head safety injection, including the recirculation phase.

'.0

SUMMARY

Based on our evaluation of the information provided by the licensee,

.we find that the proposed changes do not substantially change the existing requirements, but do provide for clarity and completeness.

Therefore, we conclude that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

We have determined that the proposed amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types, increase in total amounts of effluents, or. an increase in power level, and will not resuTt in any significant environmental impact.

Having made this determination, we have concluded that the amendment involves an action whi ch is insi gnificant from the standpoint of environmental

impact, and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement.or negative declaration and environmental

.impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

6.0 CONCLUSION

We, also conclude, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease ip a safety margin, the amendment does not.involve a significant hazards considerati'on; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed, manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

Date:

February 3; 1982

- 7590-.01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. '50-244 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF. AMENDMEHT TO PROVISIONAL

'he U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (the Corrrni.ssion) has issued Amendment Ho.

48 to Provisional Operating License Ho. DPR-18, issued to Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation (the licensee),

which revised the Technical Spe'cifications for operation of the R. E. Ginna Plant (facility) located in'.Wayne County, New York,. This amendment oecame effective on 3anuar,v'3..1982.

The amendment incorporates technical specification changes that clarify the requirements for operability of the Emergency Core Cooling System.

The application for amendment complies with the standards and require-ments.of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (the Act),.and the.

Commission's rules and regulations.

The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comnission's rules and regulations in 10'CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

The Comnission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not resul,t.in any significant environmental impact and 'that pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.

I

~

I V

>ps

~

lt

.p

~

~

r i'a.~~"~

m I

7.590-01..

Foi. further details.with respect to this. action, see.(1.)

the application for amendment notarized January 14, 1982 (transmitted by letter dated January 14, 1982},(2) Amendment No.

48 to License No. DPR-18, and (3) the Commission's. related Safety Evaluation.

All of'hese items are available for public inspection at the Commission s Public Document

Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

and at the Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York

. 14627.

A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory, Commission, Washington, D. C.

20555, Attention:

Director', Division.of Licensing.

~

~

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 'this third day of February, 1982.-

~

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7N Dennis N. Crutchfield,

'ief Operating Reactors Branch 85..

Division of Licensing

0 I

>I i il g

.