ML20041E121
| ML20041E121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E117 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203100164 | |
| Download: ML20041E121 (3) | |
Text
E[psueg k
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 T_0 LED 0EDISONC0f1PAE AND CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 Introduction By letter dated February 23,1982 (Serial No. 785), The Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, Technical Specifications (TSs), Appendix A.
The proposed changes would permit a one-time extension to the maximum surveillance interval for certain surveillance requirements which are due on various dates in March 1982.
As a consequence of our review of the proposed changes and discussions with the licensee, we have made certain modifications to the proposed TSs. The licensee concurs with these modifications.
Discussion and Evaluation The extension of these surveillance intervals would pemit continued unit operation beyond the presently scheduled refueling outage start date in February to a revised refueling outage start date of March 19, 1982.
This revised outage start date would pemit the accomplishment of more pre-outage work required to complete the large number of Ti1I-related modifications during ' refueling.
The proposed changes would apply to Tables 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-11, and Sections 4.6.4.2.b, 4.6.5.1.d, and 4.7.1.2.d of the Davis-Besse TSs.
The proposed surveillance interval extensions apply only to.the eighteen-month surveillance tests identified in Table I of this Safety Evaluation and would extend the due dates for these tests, currently due at various times during March 1982, to March 31, 1982.
et M
The eighteen-month surveillance test interval for these (and other) gg systems in the facility was selected to be consistent with the maximum nio anticipated interval between refueling. For various reasons, this m8 interval since the last refueling has been longer than anticipated.
L (To allow some operational flexibility, the TSs allow a 4-1/2 month extension to the eighteen-month interval). The surveillance interval
-u 88 selection, however, is based on engineering judgment to achieve the dual goals.of the need to require periodic surveillance test:, but not og interfere substantially with unit availability, m o. a.
. The eighteen-month surveillance tests are intended to identify for correction any drift in calibration or system performance deterioration which might occur over the long term. These tests are not intended to reveal random system or component failure which might affect public health and safety.
The time extension to the surveillance interval requested by the licensee varies, depending upon the test to be conducted, from one day to 31 days.
It is unlikely, based upon the results of past surveillance testing and experience, that excessive incremental drift or deterioration in performance will occur during the time extension.
Our review has resulted in the finding that the proposed changes will not impose a significant adverse impact on the health and safety of the public Thus, we find the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications acceptabit.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types *or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impagt. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is instonificant from the stant'90 int of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or necative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a rignificant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission'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.
Dated: February 26, 1982 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Albert DeAgazio.
S
TABLE I EIGITEEft-H0flTH SURVEILLANCE TESTS REQUIRIflG EXTEilSI0fl A.
Reactor Protection System (RPS) 1.
Reactor Coolant System Flow - Channel calibration and response time check i
2.
Reactor Coolant System Pressure - Channel calibration and response time check B.
Safety Features Actuation System (SFAS) 1.
Containment Radiation Monitor - Calibration and response time check C.
Steam and Feedwater Rupture Control System (SFRCS) i.
Steam Generator Level - Channel calibration 2.
SFRCS Manual Actuation D.
Auxiliary Feedwater Test 1.
Auxiliary Feed Pump Turbine - Speed switch calibration E.
Containment Recirculating System 1.
System flow measurement F.
Energency Ventilation System 1.
Denonstration of system actuation upon SFAS signal 2.
Verification that filter cooling bypass valve can be opened manually 1
.