ML19319B380
| ML19319B380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B375 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001150960 | |
| Download: ML19319B380 (10) | |
Text
.
O..-
SAFETf EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPokTING MEtd11ENT N0. / TJ LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO E0ISOd C01PA:4Y AND rm m 0
OI W d].,..I l
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLuilNATING CQtPANY L
DAVIS-dESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT I o -
DOCKET NO.50-34o a
fj_(0jj 1 j h L
INTR 0udC T10ti Our Safety Evaluation supporting A,nendment No. 7 to f acility Operating License No. HvF-3 tor tne Davis-desse nuclear Power Station, Unit I addresses six different items. As delineated oelow, items (1), (2), (3) ano (4) refer to licensing condi tions 2.C.(3)(r ), 2.C.(a)(1), 2.C.(3)(m),
and 4.C.(J)(Q) respcCtiVely, as stipulated in NPF-3.
Items (0) dnd (0) doGress Gnanges to the Tecnnical Spect rications, Appenaix A, to avF-3 as requested oy tne Toledo Edison Coupany.
(1) Paragrapn 2.C.(3)(K) stipulates as a condition to N/F-3 tnat:
" Prior to startup following tne first (1st) regularly scneduled refueling cutage or no later tnan 26 racatas tron tne issuance of this license, wnicnever coraes first, Toledo Edison Company snali couplete tests and ootain test resuits as required oy tne Cc.miission to verify tnat f aults on non-Class IE circuits would not propagate to tne Class IE circuits in tne Reactor Protection System and toe Enjineeren Safety Features Actuation Syste:a.
In audition, ditnin tour (4) contns from tne issuance of tais license Toleco Edison Coupany snali provice acceptable noise test proccoures in accorc-ance witn enil. Standarc in00, Section 4.o.11 (or equivalent) for tests to De conductea on the non-Class IE circuits tnat inter-face witn tne Reactor Protection system, in orcer to satisry the objectives or Section 4.6 of IEEE Standard 279.196d."
(2) Paragrapn 2.C.(3)(l) stipulates as a condition to NFF-3 tnat:
witnin six (6) raanths from the issuance of this license Toleco Ecison Company snail provide additional supporting analyses for the large break spectrum to document the exact margins witnin the ECCS acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.40; and shall provide operating reactor coolant system flow data for the facility wnicn can oe used to cocument reactor coolant system total pressure crops.'
i orrie s =
j e_.
s.
l o.,a >
NRC FORM 313 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W un e. envsammeswr rmwrine orrics note - esm 8001150%Q l
l
4
'crior to startuo following the first (1st) regularly i
scheculed refueling outage of no later tnan Zo aantns troa tne issuance of Inis license, wnicnever comes first, Toleco Ecison Coapany snali coaplete tests and ootain test resul ts as required Dy the Commission to verify tnat faults on non. Class IE circutts woula not propagate to the Class li circuits in :ne Reactor Protection Systea and tne Engineerec Sarety features Actuation Systen."
(t)
The Toleac Euison Company. net witn tne NRC staf f on June 23, 1977 at anicn time tne staf t spect ried tne large area ( analyses required to racet tne stipulations of license conot tion 2.C.(a)(1).
Tne analyses requirea were specified to oe:
(1) a split at tne paap discnarge.
(d) a ccuale endeo creak at tne puup discnarge, and (3) a doucle 2noco crea( at tne puap suction, witn all tnrea cases spect ried for a o.as square foot creak and a discnarge coerficient or 1.0.
ine auove analyscs requireo for license conciclon 2.C.(3)(1) were spect ried in our letter of August ZS, IJ/7 to tne Toleco Eoison Ccapany ey letter, catec uctcoer 21, is77, tna Toledo Edison Company providea tae analyses for tne reactor coolant piping large creax spectrua as spect ried in cur letter or regust 22, 1977.
Jecause of celays in plant operation not anticipated waen license i
avF-3 was issueo, a power level nas not yet been ootained wnico will provica auequate operating reactor cuolent system flow data wnica can ce used to cocument reactor coolant systea total pressure crops wnten is in part a requirement of license concition 2.C.(3)(1).
In tneir latter of Octooer 21, l'a7/, tne loleco Edison Company stateu tnat tney nill provide the reactor coolant system rics cata within au days rollowing reactor operation at a power level of 90 percent er greater or rated ther?.al power.
Sased upon tne Toleco delson company's submittal of tne required large creax spectrua analyses, se conclude tnat the stipulations of license condition 2.C.(3)(1) for the suunittal of large crean spectrwn analyses is no longer necessary. Tnerefore, concition 2.C.(3)(1) of Facility operating License tuf-3 is amended to reaa:
D y
aaS m
D 3b_]
o J
j i
sunuaus >
om,s >
- us ve===== mium o=== tm -
a hacyomu na <9.m xacu ose
n.
O l
(3) Paragrapa 2.C.(3)(w) stipulates as a condition to NPF-3 tnat:
"ditnin six (o) reontns frua tne issuance of tnis license, Toledo idtson Company snail mooiry tne existing low pressare and nign pressure injection riod indication system to one wnicn nas been j
seismically quat t ried and powered troa essential power sources wita riow inoication in tne aain control room."
i (4) varagrapu 2.C.(3)(q) stipulates as a conoition to NPF-3 tnat:
I
'et tnin tour (4) months fran tne issuance or this license, Toledo ic1 son Coapany snall suD01t an evaluation and proposed MCdifi-cations, if required, so tnat the facility cesign will assure auequate Dreater coordination and isolation ot' its onsite system in surticient t1ae to penat t tne requirec Class IE equipaent to operste in tne event of of fsite grid degraustion. ?rior to the Coaaission aoproval of the modification, Toledo ictson Company soall maintain tne normal operating range for tne grid system voltage oetween 96.3 percent to 1C2.3 percent or rated voltage (witn corresponcing safety-related bus voltage as actined in M.taconent 1 of Toledo idison Ccapany's lettar to tne Coaatssion dateo Hosemoer 13, l'J/bl.
In tne event tne system conc 1tions exceed tnese values, Ioledo Edison Coc.pany snall proceco in an orderly.aanner to reduce load to 6 percent of rated power and ta(a corractive action to stabilize tne systan to witnin tne values stateo aDove prior to return to nigner power levels."
(3) oy letter, dated octueer 27, 1977, tne roleco Edison Company requested a cnange in tne Tecanical Scecir1 cations, Appendix A.
due to recent cninges maue in tne racility design to assure tnat a de; raced grid voltage condition coes not result in failure of safety systems, er ca.;ponents. Inese cesign mocifications are utscussed in Itea (4) of tais Safety Evaluatien.
Specifically. tne Toleco Ectson Canpany nas requested tnat in Taolo 3.J-4, page 3/4 3-13, the Trip Setpoint and Allowaolo Values for
}
t.1e Sequence Logic Cnannels, Itca a, ce changed fran 101 1.5 seconcs to 7 3 1.3 seconds.
t rN n D
D l
w a
.R
~
e l,[ d a o p(
0 JJ d'r'j JY oprics >
ousmame >
pte h NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NROS 0240 p us s. a. _ _ _.. pain,mmes osty,sas seys-ese.an3 J
~
9 3-(6)
By letter dated July 29, 1977, the Toledo Edison Company requested tnat tne acactor Protection Systen surveillance requirements contained
-in the Tecnnical Specifications ce revised to reflect rept+.ement or reactor coolant systen pressure transmitters with trans.nttters wnico miniialze crif t erfects associated with tne replaced transnitters and all a Cnannel Calicration frequency to be cnangea froa once every four montns to once every eignteen sontns.
015CuSSICN AND EVALUAT104 (1) ey letter, cated May 25, 1977, the Toleco Edison Coapany suonitted noise test procedures for tests tnat will oe conouctec on tne non-Class IE circuits tnat interf aca witn one cciaplete reactor protection Cnannel. de nave reVieded tue suotaltted test proc 0Gares and ddve ceter:alneo that tne test procecures are in accordance witn riii.
Standard 19300, Ssction 4.o.11.
In tna sucaittaa noise test preceoures, tne Toledo Edison Ccapany stated tnat aJring tne noise tests tne reactor protection systen cnannel.ni t ce ouserved f or any of f nun.131 operation of i ts Class li tunction.
ay letter dated August 4,1977, tae Toledo Ecison Ce.ioany, at our request, provided uccumentatica to assure tnat appropriate instru-aentation, vill De provided with tne reautrco accuracy and sensitivity to racnitor oy way of bistavles any of f normal operation of ne Ciass li runcticas.
dased upon sur review of tne noise test procedures for any cif noraai operation of tne Class IE functicns, we find that tne Toledo Eoison Leopany nas cet our requiresents as stated in Section /.2 of Supple-ment I to our safety Evaluatica Report.
Also, the loledo Edison Company nas act tne stipulations of license canoition z.C.(3)(X) requiring tnat ecceptacle noise test procecures ce proviced witnin four (4) contns from tne cate or issuance of license a/F-a.
inerefore, conoition 2.C.(3)(K) of Facility Operating License aPF-3 is amended to read:
D<
D r?1 u JL c,
c' 's) 10 y
a J O E
_ 1 S, _,
oreie s
- i
..e.....
casew NBC 50RM Hs (9 76) NRCX 0240 W ua s. eovsamseser Psmmne orrices ten -eso.ead
+
w e
at,
,rr mm D
.D oc1
_S.
o3
~}, ~
Wb-J 41tnin Intrty (30) days rollowing two (2) weeks of sustained reactor power operation at a power level or W percent or greater of rated tnerraal power, tne Toleco Esison Company snall provide operating reactor coolant systen flow cata for the tacility whicn can be used to cocument reactor coolant systeta total pressure ccops.
(J)
In Section o.3.2 of our Safety Evaluation Report we discussec Ina ces1gn of tne f acility eraergency core cooling system design. As originally aesigned, tne low pressure injection anc nign presure injection riow ino1 cation in the main control room was non-safety grade. During tne course or our review, we oiscusseo tais matter with tne loleco Edison Cctapany witn respact to operator action required to open the crosstie between tne two low pressure injection lines and operator action required to open tne los pressure injection to nigh pressure injection crosstie valves.
The Toledo Edison Comp 6ny evaluated operator actions witn respect to tne non-safety r; race flow inoication and determined tnat octri the low pressure injection and nign pressure injection fl;w incication snould De taodiflec f rom ncn-sarety grade to safety grdce for tile rollowing reasons:
(a) An operator is required to open tre low pressure injection to low pressare injection crosstie if tne two (2) low pressure injection flows are cif rerent ey noce cnan 500 galions per minute. Mso, arter tne low pressure inj2ction to low pressure injection crosstie is openec the operator is required to equalize tne two low pressure injection ficws by tnrottiing vahes ud 14 A dnd S or CH I A and O.
(D)
An operator is required to open tne icw pressure injection to nign pressure crosstie valves ii tne low pressure injcctio,1 flow is not greater taca Guu gailcn per minuta cerare tne Dorated water storage tank low level trip plices tne cmergency core cooling system in rne containment e:aergency sump recircu-lation mcde.
Also, the hign pressure flow indication was evaluated as being essential to provide tne operator an indication tnat the nign pressure injection riow is caintained af ter tne low pressure injection to nigh pressure injection crosstle valves are opened and tne eraergency core cooling system nas gone to the containment emergency sucp recirculation mode.
ornes
- oat e >
j lac PORM 318 (p.76) NRCM 0240 k ua s. oovanissur painnne orriese ten.oroemd
0 I
'O-@0 LU 3
.o.
9 hl 0
l $
1"0 j
U 1 3 On July 30, 1976, tne Toledo Ecison Co.npany suomitted Amendment No.
36 consisting of Revision no. 20 to the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Revision No. Zu inclucea proposed moctrications which would provide low pressure Injection and high pressure injection flow indication in tne main control room wnich was set sanically qualified and powered from essential power sources.
Iwediately enereafter, the roledo Edison Coupany ordered tne necessary flow transmitters,1 solation cevices and power supplies required to make the 11001tications.
oy letter, cated Harcn 29, 1977, the Toledo Eoison Company informeo us tnat tney nad recently been notitied of tneir vendor T.nat tne properly qualitieu flow transuitters required to ccaplete the installation of tne mocifications discusseo above coulo not be supplied Defore July 1977. Also, tne Toleco Ecison ComCany stated tnat tne new ricw trans:.iitters woulu ce installeu as quicKly as possiole upon site uelivery.
Prior to issuance of Facility Operating License 40. @F-3, sna :: asea upon tne then uncertainty in site delivery or tne ners flo,v transaitters, we cetermineo that witnin six nontns f reri issuance of saio license was a reasonacle period of t1ae f or the Toieco Edison Coapany to ccaoleta tae Installation of tne accitied valve position indication in the control ecom.
On July 18, 1977, tne Toteco icison Ccapany intornec us Inat tae
,r.caified systen nad ceen installea and compiend and was in contor-mance witn the conditions of Paragrapn z.C.(3)(n).
sy aemoranca:a cateo July 22, 1977, the Orrice or Inspection and Enforcement informed us tnat tne modified law pressure and nign pressure injection flow indication systea was installoc in accorcance witu Paragrapn 2.C.(3) Ca).
dased upon installation oy tne Toleco Eaison Ccapany of tne acumed low pressure and nign pressure inject. ion riow ino1 cations systen, wnien nas oeen veritice oy tne Of fice or Inspection and Enforcecent to oe in accorcance witn Paragrapa 2.C.(3)(a), we fina tnat One conot tion stipulated in varagrapn 2.C.(3)(a) nas been fully satisfied and, tnerefore, is no longer necessary.
Inerefore, we conclude tnat Facility Operating Licerse tio. NPF-3 can ce anended by removing tne license condition as stated in Paragrapn 2.C.(3)(a).
omcs >
su.es a ne s >
Daf s >
NRC PORM 318 (9#6) NRCM 0240 W un s. eovssessassser passmoses oFJPOSEI 197s = GAG =G$a
00p 3[ o a jj oT n o b
_ b
{J JLJ 7~
~
(4) On July lu,1977 tne Toledo Edison Company suomitted a sis: nary of the detailed analysis conducted on their Class IE system and provided a description of the proposed ciodification on tne systen to assure that, in tne event of an offsite power degracation, the cesign will cetect and isolate the Class IE systems from tne degraded of f site power source in sufficient time without aaversely af fecting tne opera 0111ty of tne safety systems. Based on tneir analysis the Toledo Eoison Coaipany identified the following modirications to tne facility cesign.
(a)
Incorporate an aaditional Class IE uncervoltage relay on eaca 4.lbKV safety ous (set at sti of nominal voltage) to isolate the safety ouses fren tneir ottsite source.
Inese relsys w111 provice pr1sary protection and isolation for the existing instantaneous uncervoltage relays set at S% of ncqinal grid vol tage.
(o)
Provide acditional alarns on tne essential 4.10C/ ouses.
(c) Hocify tne existing one aapere fuses ivr tne actor control cereter control power to 2.5 ampare slow blow tuses.
(d)
Revise overcurrent relay setpoints for the essential 4.lMV motors.
dased on our reviUW of tne foleco Edison CotMany's response submitted on July lu,1977 and the facility c.ioutitcations descrioea acove, we conclude tnat tne Toleco Edison Cenpany's response ano mocirications to the facility cesign.aeet our require.aents as stated in Suppler.ent ao. I to our 5arety Evaluation Report ina are acceptacle, anc fully meet tne stipulations of license condition 2.C.(J)(c).
dy menorandun dated Octooer 31, 1977, tne Of fice of Inspection anc Enforcement infornec us tnat tne coat t1 cations in cne facility design, as cescrioed aoove, nave been installeo and cenpleted.
dased upon our Conclusions as stated aDove and upon tne installdtion of tne cocifications to the facility cesign wnica nave ceen verified to De completea by the Office of Inspection ano Enrorceaant, we fina tnat license condition 2.C.(3)(q) is no longer necessary. Therefore, Facility Operating License PWF-3 is nereby aaenced oy removing license condition 2.C.(3)(q).
ovencaw l
evanaus
- 1 Dats >
ISC 70R38 318 (N6) NRCM 0240 W va s.eovsamassar enintime orricus sete-see.asd
om D
D h'l Wc 7
o o dl L
O p-7
~0-
.i b a
(5)
As stated in item (4) above, tne Toledo Ec1 son Company submitted tncir detailed analysis on July le,1977 whien we evaluated anc found acceptable.
In tnat analysis the Toleco Ecison Company statea that additional undervoltage relaying nad ceen acded to tne 4.10 kilovol t essential switen gear anc tnat the relays functioned on 90 percent voltage and a ten second time celay to trip incu11ng 4.10 (ilovolt source orcaxers.
To increase tne margin in the response time of tne acergency core cooling systen, the loleco Ect son Company stated tnat the ten second time celay satting to trip the inccaing 4.1o 411ovolt source areaxers would ae enanged to 9 seconcs to assure tnat eniergency core cooling systen los pressure injection was assured witnin tne 30 seconds required Dy accident analysis.
la assure tnat trip tioe will occur in 'l seconcs, tne Toleco icison Company stated Enat 0.e seconc snould ce cecucted rrori tne J seconc tlae delay setting ta account for inaccuracies and cr1f t in the cimer and an acc1tional 1.o seconds should oe ceductec troa tne 9 secona time celay setti.ig ice a dead sand setting, lhe inaccuracies and critt plus tne aead cand setting result in an allowaole trip setcoiat of 7.u v 1.5 sec ana are in ccnton.1ance wita tne reautrements of stagulascry Galoe 1.10S, "Instreaent Setpoints,* Revision 1, Scve=cer 13/o.
Since this enange iniolves an increase in a safety cargin, tnere is no signiricant nazaras consideration involved. Inerefore, aasec ucon our review and accectance or the Toleco Ecison Company's suDaittal of July 18, 1977 as stated in Item (4) aDove, anc the contoraance of tne reviseo trip setpoint wita ;<egulatory Gulce 1.lL6, we tinc acceptaale the Toleco Edisco Cc pany's request Tor specify1ng an allowacle trip setpoint of 7.u 3 1.5 seconds in Taaie 3.J-4, page 3/4 3-13 Sequence Logic Cnannel (a) of tne Tecanical Specifications.
(b) Un vecemcer 30, 1976, tne Toledo Ecison Coapanv suonitted Anencaent No. 43 (Revision No. 26 to tne Final Safety A..asysis Report).
In devision.40. 2b tne Toledo Edison Company stated tnat the narrow range Motorola reactor coolant pressure transmitters would De replaced wita Rosemont transmitters. Tne Roset.ont 1152 transtaitters are specified to nave no core cr1ft tnan 2 pounds per sqaare inen gauge ever en eignteen month period (one-quarter of one percent of full scale range - 1700 to 2500 pounds per square inch gauge).
OPPICE F SUMMAME P Daf t >
NRC PORM 318 (9-76) NROE 0240 A us e. eovanssamk reiiEviMei bericas n eve - ene.ama
oo D
D w
i aal O
~]
a jlJ
_ I l _a 9-dy comparison, the Hotorola transaitters were known to have drif t greater tnan 2 pounos per square inch gauge for various time intervals of less enan eighteen uontns.
It was for Inis reason tnat de stated in cur Safety tvaluation Report (Section 7.2) tnat tue surveillance taterval incluced in tne Tecnnical Specirications ce recuco tren id conths to 4 montns until an accepta' ale crirt was uewonstratea. The use of Inc Rosemont 1152 transmitters eliainatas tne need for that reduced interval.
Inc Rosemont 1152 transaitters are seisaically and environaentally qualif teo and meet the guidelines of tne Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 273-1971 and are acceptdole. Also, Ine Rosanont transmitters 00 not require recalioration more frequent tnan once every eignteen nontns to meet tne guicelines of the Institute of Electrical ana Electronic Eagineers 2/9-1911.
Inerefore, we find tne Toledo Ecison Co.wpany's request to revise tne Technicai 5pectrications, Appendix A, ca cage 3/4 3 ~, TaDie a.5.-l
/
for increasing tne Gnannel Caliaration Surveillance FreqJeGCies ror Functional Units 5, o, and i troa once every 120 days to once every eignteen contns to ae acceptacle.
EaVIRua9Eal AL CONSIDERAflurl We have aeterainec that the acendaent does not authorize a enange in errluent types or total aaounts nor an 1.1 crease in power level and.iill not resul t in any sign 1r1 cant environWental 1 lpaCt. d4V109 Gade E!)1s Celer.11 nation, We : lave furtner concluced tnat the amencaent involves an action whicn is insigniricant from tne standpoint or enviruncental impact, and pursuant to iu CFR 501.5(d)(4),
that an environntental 1. pact staceaetit, negative declaration ana environnental impact appraisal need not ce crepared in connection alta toe issuance or tnt s amencaent.
C0aCLo510N ne nave concluded, based on tne consideratient discussed aDove, tnat:
(1) cecause Ine amencaent cces not involve a significant increase in tne pr00a-bility or consequences or accidents previously considered or a significant decrease in any safety cargin, it oces not involve a significant nazaros consideration, (2) there is reasonaole assurance tnat tne nealtn anc sarety of the puDlic will not be encangered by operation in the proposed inanner, and (3) such activities will ce conducted in coco 11ance witn tne Co.7mtssion's regulations and the issuance of tnis amenenent will not ne inimical to tne conson defense and security or to the nealth ano safety or tne puolic. Also, we reaf ttrm our conclusions as otherwise stated in our Safety Evaluation Report.
Oated:
November 29, 1977 OFFICE W I
/
.e u
o DATE W
~ **-
ItaC Pomag ns (976) NROf 0240 W ua e. oovannasswr manne omem tem-essend
os P
W d
A D"P D
M ooS or r
afu.AulDus uy comparisdh, tne flotorola trans:aitters were known to nave orif t greater tnan 2 pouncs per square incn gauge for various time
_ g intervals of less tnan eignteen i:;ontns.1 hF D
ine dosecont lis2 transmitters are seismically anu environmentally qualif tec ano meet tne guicelines of the Institute of Electrical anc Electronic Engineers 2/9-19/1 anc are acceptaole. Also, tne Rosemont transaitters do not require recalioration :aore frequent tnan once every eignteen rianths to meet tne guidelines of tne Institute of Electrical ana Electronic Engineers 279-1971.
Inerefore, we find tne Toleco Edison Corapany's request to revise tne lecnnical Specifications, Appencix A, on page 3/4 a-7, TaDie 4.3.-1 for increasing the Gnannel Cslibration Surveillance Frequencies for functional Uni ts 5, 6, and / frca once every 120 days to once every ei;nteen aontns to to accepuole.
inyIa0 weniAL CdnSIDEP.AT10i1 We nava determined Inat tne a.aenc.aent oces not autacrize a caange in ef fluent types or total aacunts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signiilcant environmental inpict. Having aade this aeterainatica, we nave turtner cor.cluced tnat tne aaenc.aent involves an action unica is incignificant tro.a tne sunupoint or environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Jol.a(d)(4),
tnat an environ.nental 1.npact stateaent, negative ceclaration and envirorr. ental 1.cpact appraisal need not be prepared in connection witn :ne issuance of this a:nenu..en t.
Cu.:CLLSimi we nave concluded, ca:cd on tne considerations discussed above, that:
(1) oecause tne auenzent coes not involve a significant increase in tne proca-oility or consaquences of accicents previously considered or a significant decreasa in any safety. margin, it does not involve a significant nazards consiceraticn, (2) tnere is reasonuale assurance tnat tne nealtn and safety or tne puai nc will not ce endangered ay operation in tne proposed,nanner, ano (d) saca activities will oe conuucted in coupliance with the C<xnission's regulations and tne issuance of tnis amendment will not ce inilaical to tne ceaaon defense and security or to the nealtn and safety of tne puolic. Also,
.,e reartirm our conclusions as otnerwise stated in our Safety Evaluation deport.
Dated:
e b
tt
~
r M
LWR LWR 1 OTr LD LEngle/ red JStolz MYta,4 jq 11/[7/77
_11/ d 77_
h a em.
NRC PORM 31s (>76) h6 0240 W un s. oovsnmesawr reinvine orricas so7e -eaW I
l