ML20035C563
| ML20035C563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C559 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304080116 | |
| Download: ML20035C563 (3) | |
Text
r R RECg
[gD
'o UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3m g,
.E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 5
o
's,
,o i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.172 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY I
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 12, 1992, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/ licensee) proposed a Technical Specification (TS) change in the operational testing frequency for the emergency feedwater (EFW) system pumps from monthly to quarterly (TS 4.9.1.1). The licensee has also proposed two additional changes: (1) redefinition of how the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval is to be divided into three subintervals, and (2) separation of the inservice inspection requirements from the inservice testing (IST) requirements.
2.0 EVALUATION The IST requirements for commercial nuclear power plants is specified in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code). When the Three Mile Island, l' it 1 (TMI-1) TS were revised to reflect a monthly safety-related pump testia frequency, the applicable edition of the Code was the 1974 Edition through the Summer of 1975 Addenda.
Beginning with the 1980 Edition of the Code, the Code-specified test frequency for safety-related pumps was changed to quarterly. However, the licensee elected to continue monthly testing of the EFW pumps.
Experience over the past several years has i
shown that the EFW pumps are very reliable and have not shown degradation or 1
failure tendencies.
In addition, recent probabilistic risk analyses have concluded that the contribution of EFW pump failure to core damage frequency is smaller than that of other safety related pumps that have been tested on a quarterly frequency for several years.
The licensee has proposed changes to the operational testing frequency requirements for the three EFW system pumps. Currently, the pumps are tested monthly; this change will specify that the tests be performed quarterly as specified in Article IWP-3400,Section XI of the 1980 Edition of the Code.
The change would also be in accordance with CFR 50.55a(f), Inservice Testing.
The Code states, "an inservice test shall be run on each pump nominally every three months during normal plant operation." The Code does not specify when, 9304000116 930330 PDR ADOCK 05000287 p
FDR.
i within the 3-month period, each redundant pump within a given system is to be l
tested. The Revised Standard Technical Specifications (RSTS) for Babcock &
Wilcox (B&W) plants specify that EFW pumps should be tested quarterly on a staggered test basis. The RSTS does not, however, specify staggered testing for other safety-related pumps covered by the Code. The licensee proposes testing the three EFW pumps once per quarter but not necessarily on a staggered basis.
The safety implications of testing all pumps within a short period of time during the 3-month period (e.g, within the first week of each quarter) compared to testing on a " staggered" basis was evaluated and no net safety benefit was apparent either way. The staff also reviewed the licensee's plant surveillance procedures for EFW pump testing. The staff judged that the licensee's proposal is reasonable and within the intent of the Code and the RSTS.
The proposed change in testing frequency will not change the testing method, acceptance criteria for the test, nor will the change result in the performarce of any new tests. The EFW pumps are always in standby service and are operated only for testing or in the event of loss of feedwater flow from the normal feedwater pumps.
The EFW pumps are not operated during plant 1
startup or shutdown to control steam generator level as they are in other plant designs.
Beneficial aspects of testing the pumps less frequently include less wear on the pumps for the purpose of operational testing and a reduction in the total amount of slightly radioactive steam released via the steam-driven EFW pump which discharges directly to atmosphere, even though this amount is already very small and insignificant from a safety standpoint.
r The licensee also proposed editorial changes to reflect recent changes to 10 CFR 50.55a (57 FR 34666) which separated IST requirements from the ISI requirements in paragraph 50.55a(g).
The IST requirements are now located in paragraph 50.55a(f), which was previously labeled " reserved." These changes are reflected in the proposed amendment.
j The licensee also proposed an administrative change which reflects the fact that the applicable ASME Section XI Edition no longer divides the 10-year inspection interval into three equal periods of three and a third years.
The 1986 Edition of Section XI divides the 10-year period into 36 months, 48 months, and 36 months.
The staff concludes that the proposed changes are consistent with current
}
regulatory requirements and represent an improvement in the quality of the TS.
Therefore, the staff finds the changes to be acceptable.
i
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State i
official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State i
official had no comments.
l
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
I 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. The NRC staff has determined that the. amendment involves no i
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 (57 FR 61113). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
I 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 dCtivities Will be Conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common deferise and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Zimmerman Date:
March 30, 1993 i
i b
I l
i 3