ML19354E667
| ML19354E667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354E666 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002010049 | |
| Download: ML19354E667 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _. _. _. _... _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.
t p* Nouq'o q
, [.i
- g UNITED STATES i
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
g W A&HINGTON. D. C. 20066
'%,.....f l
j l
j SAFETY EVALUAT10N BY THE OFFICE OF. NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDNENT NO.
145 70 FACILITY OPERATING LICEN$E NO. NPFQ I
TOLED0 E0150N COMPANY EE 4
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BES:>E NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. !
I i
00CKET NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) was forwarded to the Staff in a letter trom the Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) dated September 10, 1987.
The amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.3 and Bases i
Section 4.0.3 in accordance with NRC Generic Letter 87-09.
The changes would include a specific, acceptable time limit of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to complete an inadvertently missed surveillance before the provisions of the applicable Action Requirements apply if the requirec action is less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> from discovery.
2.0 EVALUATION In GL B7-09 the staff stated that it is inappropriate to assume that systems or components are inoperable when a surveillance requirement has not been performed, because the vast majorit or components in fact are operable.y of surveillances demonstrate that systems 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, the time required to perform the surveil-lance, 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 times of the Action Requirements are less than this time limit or when shutdown Action Requirements apply. The 24-hour time limit would balance the risks associated with an l
allowance for completing the surveillance within this period against the risks associated with the potential for a plant upset and challenge to safety systems when the alternative is a shutdown to comply with Action Requirements before the surveillance can be completed.
9002010049 900125
~
PDR ADOCK 05000346 P
FDC
. ~...
l
- ' )
2 This limit does not waive compliance with Specification 4.0.3.
Under Specifi-cation 4.0.3, the failure to perform a surveillance requirement will continue l
to constitute noncompliance with the operability requirements of an LCO and to bring into play the applicable Action Requirements.
Based on the above, the staff finds the following change to Specification 4.0.3 is acceptable:
Failure to perform a Surveillance Requirement within the allowed surveillance interval, defined by Specification 4.0.2, shall constitute noncompliance with the OPERABILITY requirement for a Limiting Condition for Operation. The time limits of the ACTION Requirements are applicable at the time it is identified that a Surveillance Requirement l'
has not been performed. Compliance with the Action Requirements may be delayed for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to permit the completion of the surveillance when the allowable outage time limits of the Action Requirements are less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff l
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 issuea a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22,b),noenvironmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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 )roposed manner, and (2) such activities l
I will be conducted in compliance with tie Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
1 Principal Contributor:
A. Gody Dated:
January 25, 1990 4
-