ML20059L169
| ML20059L169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L167 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402030255 | |
| Download: ML20059L169 (3) | |
Text
n cp otc 4
UNITED STATES
'g l
y.
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
. l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.179 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-73 DUOVESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA P_0WER COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THE TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-334 AND 50-412
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fy letter dated February 19, 1993, the Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The changes would:
(1) replace the action statement of TS 3.4.9.1 and 3.4.9.2 with a list of specifications actions to be taken if the requirements of.the limiting condition for operation are not met, (2) modify TS surveillance requirement 4.4.9.2 by separating the requirements into 4.4.9.2.1 and 4.4.9.2.2, and by adding 4.4.9.2.3, and (3) modify Unit No. 2 TS 3.4.9.2 by revising the auxiliary spray water temperature differential requirement, and adding a normal spray water temperature differential requirement. The maximum spray water temperature differential requirement found in TS 3.4.9.2 for Unit No. I remains unchanged.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The action statements associated with TS 3.4.9.1 and 3.4.9.2 for both units, prior to this amendment request, contained several requirements including the requirement to perform an analysis to determine the effects of an out-of-limit
-temperature condition on the reactor coolant system or pressurizer. No time limit was specified for.the completion of this analysis. This amendment request specifies a time limit of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> for the completion of the engineering evaluation, formally called an analysis.
In addition, the amendment request changes the format of the original. action statements by separating the individual actions required and listing them as "a," "b,"
and
-i "c."
The surveillance requirements associated with TS 4.4.9.2.2 for both units, prior to this amendment request, contained two requirements including the requirement to determine that the pressurizer spray water temperature differential, both normal and auxiliary, is within the limit at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> during steady state operation. This amendment request changes this 9402030255 940131 gDR ADOCK 05000334 PDR
~
requirement by specifying that the normal spray water temperature differential shall be determined to be within the limit at least once per 30 minutes during system heatup or cooldown, and that the auxiliary spray water temperature differential shall be determined to be within the limit at least once per 30 minutes during auxiliary spray operation.
In addition, the amendment request changes the format of the original surveillance requirements by separating the individual requirements and. listing them as TS 4.4.9.2.1 (pressurizer temperature), TS 4.4.9.2.2 (normal spray water temperature differential), and TS 4.4.9.2.3 (auxiliary spray water temperature different d,).
The Unit No. 1 TS 3.4.9.2 places a limit on the maximum pressurizer spray water temperature differential, either normal or auxiliary, of 320
- F.
This limit is not being changed by this amendment request. The Unit No. 2 TS 3.4.9.2, prior to this amendment request, placed a limit on the maximum auxiliary spray water temperature differential of 625
- F.
No limit on the normal spray water temperature differential was given in the original Unit No. 2 TS 3.4.9.2.
This amendment request changes Unit No. 2 TS 3.4.9.2 to lower the limit for the auxiliary spray water temperature differential to 380 *F and establishes a limit for the normal spray water temperature differential of 320 *F.
The change came about as a result of the investigation of the Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 pressurizer surge line thermal stratification issue and the leak-before-break analysis associated with the large bore snubber removal.
3.0 EVAL.UATION The change in format of the action statements in TS 3.4.9.1 and 3.4.9.2 is administrative in nature and does not reduce the scope of the required actions to be taken by the licensee in the event of an out-of-limit condition. The 72-hour time limit for the performance of the engineering evaluation is not specified in NUREG-0452, Standard Technical Specifications (STSs), but is included in this amendment request as an additional requirement and is consistent with typical TS action times for performing certain. actions prior to beginning a plant shutdown. Therefore, we find these proposed changes to be acceptable.
t During steady state operation, the pressurizer normal spray water temperature differential would not be expected to approach the limit of 320 *F.
- However, this limit could be approached during system heatup or cooldown evolutions when reactor coolant system temperatures are low. Revising.the surveillance requirements in TS 4.4.9.2 to require monitoring the pressurizer temperature and the normal spray water temperature differential at least every 30 minutes during heatup and cooldown greatly reduces the probability that the temperature differential limit will be exceeded during these evolutions and, therefora, will not subject the pressurizer surge line to excessive thermal cycling during the life of the plant. The same holds true for the additional-requirement concerning the auxiliary spray water temperature differentia 1'when this system is in operation. Therefore, we find these proposed changes to be acceptable.
e
. Revising Unit No. 2 TS 3.4.9.2 by establishing a limit for the normal spray water temperature differential of 320 *F is consistent with the STSs and WCAP-112093, " Evaluation of Thermal Stratification for the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Pressurizer Surge Line," and serves to limit the effects of thermal cycling of the pressurizer surge line during the life of the plant.
Lowering the limit of the Unit No. 2 auxiliary spray water temperature differential from 625 *F to 380 *F is consistent with the design analysis. These TS changes further restrict the spray water temperature differential limits, thereby further minimizing the effects of thermal fatigue.
Therefore, we find these proposed changes to be acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
+
Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has 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 (58 FR 25854). Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: T. Farnholtz Date:
January 31, 1994 4
j