ML18011A907
| ML18011A907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18011A906 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504250023 | |
| Download: ML18011A907 (6) | |
Text
~gR AE00 C~
0 Cy p 1~
I 0
Vl0 4p
~O
++*++
C 0
ACTO G
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 S6 OP T NG I
- 00 1.0 By letter dated January 19,
- 1995, as supplemented March 20, 1995, Carolina Power 8 Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power.Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise TS Surveillance Requirement 4.0.3 and its associated Bases to provide for a delay period of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in which to perform a surveillance that was not performed within its specified frequency.
The Harch 20, 1995, letter provided a modified version of TS 4.0.3 that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the original fg~zQ gggj.~e notice.
2 0 QblNXLQH The change proposed by the licensee is an adoption of the applicable requirements contained in NUREG-1431, "Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants," modified to be consistent with the wording of the existing TS 3.0 and 4.0 requirements.
This type of change has also been reviewed by the NRC staff considering the limitations as set forth in Generic Letter (GL) 87-09.
S ec ic In GL 87-09, the staff stated that it is overly conservative to assume that systems or components are inoperable when a surveillance requirement has not been performed, because the vast majority of surveillances demonstrate that systems or components are operable.
Because the allowable outage time limits of some action requirements do not provide an appropriate time limit for performing a missed surveillance before shutdown requirements apply, the TS should include a time limit that would allow a delay of the required actions to permit the performance of the missed surveillance.
This time limit should, be based on considerations of plant conditions, adequate
- planning, availability of personnel, and the time required to perform the surveillance, as well as the safety significance of the delay in completion of the surveillance.
After reviewing possible limits, the staff concluded that, based on these considerations, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> would be an acceptable time limit for completing a missed surveillance when the allowable outage time limit of the action requirements is less than this time limit or when shutdown requirements apply.
This 24-hour time limit would balance the risks associated with an allowance of completing the surveillance within this period against the risks
. associated with the potential for a plant upset and challenge to safety systems.
9504250023 9504i7 PDR ADOCK 05000400' P
The alternative to risks during the 24-hour time limit would be a shutdown to comply with action requirements before the required surveillance can be completed; however, that alternative is accompanied by other risks associated with an unplanned
- shutdown, and is a less desirable alternative.
Based on the above, the following licensee's proposed change to TS 4.'0.3 is acceptable:
If it is discovered that a surveillance was not performed within its specified surveillance interval, then compliance with the requirement to declare the LCO not met may be delayed, from the time of discovery, up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or up to the limit of the specified surveillance interval, whichever is less.
This delay period is permitted to allow performance of the surveillance.
If the surveillance is not performed within the delay period, the LCO must iomediately be declared not met, and the applicable ACTION requirements must be met.
Qhen the performance is performed within the delay period and the surveillance criteria are not met, the LCO must immediately be declared not met, and the applicable ACTION requirements must be met.
Surveillance Requirements do not have to be performed on inoperable equipment.
3.0
~5T 0
S Tla In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of North Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comaents.
4.0 0
S 0
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the Surveillance Requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in 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 issued a
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 8742).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibilitycriteria 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 the amendment.
~ 0 EELY}H The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comnission's regulations, and (3) the issuahce of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
N.
Le T. Dunning Date: April 17, 1995
~
4' J