ML20034B680
| ML20034B680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B679 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004300185 | |
| Download: ML20034B680 (3) | |
Text
.
l
(( i n
~
k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtAISSION j
e
)
wAsswotow. o. c. rosss s
i k+...+,/
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. s2 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-80 AND AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
- l DOCKET NO. 50 176 AND 50-323
- - I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated March 14,1990(ReferenceLAR90-04),PacificGasand Electric Company (PG8E or the licensee) requested amendments-to the' combined Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating.
License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP),
)
Unit Nos. I anti 2 respectively.
The amendments change the TS to change the scheduled date for removal of the Boron Injection Tank (BIT) from i
Diablo Canvon Unit 2.
Specifically, the change will require the-previously approved BIT removal to be implemented at the fourth j
refueling outage for botl. units.
The previous TS required the BIT removal to be implemented at the third refueling outage for Diablo l
Canyon Unit 2 and the fourth refueling outage for Unit 1.
The staff evaluation of these changes is given below'and is based on the licensee's letter of March 14, 1990. The staff's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration for these amendments was published in the Federal Repister on March 20, 1990 at 35 FR 10332.
~
e 2.0 EVALUATION L
The NRC staff has avaluated the proposed changes and finds them acceptable, based on the analyses and evaluationis given by the licensee.
A discussion of each of the specific technical specifica. tion changes made by these amendments is presented below.
1 i
l The removal of the BIT from each unit at Diablo Canyon was previously j
authorized by Amendment No. 51 to Facility Operatir.g License No. OPR-82,
. J for Unit I and Amendment No. 50 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-82, for Unit 2.- These amendments were issued on February 26, 1990, and authorized the BIT removal to be implemented at the third refueling outage for Unit 2 and the fourth refueling outage for Unit 1.
I 90043oo183 900420 fDR ADock 05000275 PDC 3
m..
- m. mmm
_,m-._
m -
2 Subsequent to the issuance of these amendments, the licensee determined that the implementation of the BIT removal durin outage for Unit 2 (which begon on March 4, 1990)g the third refueling was impractical the necessity to conduct environmental qualification upgrading-of.due to certain valve motor operator parts. These components are exposed to a harsh environment in the event of a main steam line break, and removal of the BIT will make this environment more severe, thereby necessitating the upgrading of the environmental qualification of all components not
~ previously qualified for the more severe environment. While most components have been qualified for the more severe environment, the licensee discovered, after Amendments 51 and 50 were issued, that several valves had not been qualified for the new accident environment.
To allow more time to upgrade the qualification of the valve motor operators, and avoid the possibility of delay of restart in the event that the upgrading could not be completed by the end of the outage, the licensee requested that the BIT removal for Unit 2 be delayed for one cycle, from the third to the fourth refueling outage.
In addition to changing the implementation date of BIT removal, these amendments change notations to TS Table 3.3-5 to more clearly define the Safety injection response time limits that apply before and after BIT removal. Specifically, the notation changes provide additional details of the safety injection system response time limits.
Neither the change of implementation date of BIT removal nor the change to clarify the.
response time limit definition will change the previously approved plant safety analyses and the associated environmental analyses, either before or after removal of the BIT.
Further, the licensee has inspected the Unit 2 BIT and has found that it is acceptable for continued operation for the additional cycle allowed by these amendments. The NRC staff has i
reviewed the rationale for the changes proposed by the licensee and finds them acceptable, because the delay in implement tion of the BIT represents a change from one previously approved plant configuration to another previously approved configuration, and there is no reduction in plant safety that would result from the delay.' Further, the additional clarification of the safety injection response: times does not change the limits themselves, but rather, reduces the possibility of the plant operators misunderstanding the limits or the surveillance tests used to verify the limits.
In summary the NRC staff hat reviewed the request by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to modify the combined Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 to change the implementation date for removal of the BIT for Unit 2 from the third refueling outage to the fourth refueling outage. and to clarify the response time limits, and finds it acceptable, for the reasons given above.
t
.o..
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve chinges to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in surveillance requirements. At Diablo Canyon, the restricted area coincides with the site boundary. We have determined that the amendments-involve 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 amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, setforthin10CFR51.22(c)(g).these amendments meet the eli ibility criteria for categ 9
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLU$10N We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthe public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Harry Rood Dated: April 20, 1990 i
-