ML20076J303
| ML20076J303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076J295 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410250264 | |
| Download: ML20076J303 (4) | |
Text
.
e nog It UNITED STATES go g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
193 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLED0 EDISON COMPANY CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY l
N SND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY i
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT N0 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 5,1994, the licensee requested an amendment to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1, operating license to revise the plant Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes involve TS 3/4.7.1.2, " Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) System," TS 3/4.7.1.7, " Motor Driven Feedwater Pump (MDFP) System," and their associated Bases, j
One of the major changes in the proposed revision extends the surveillance intervals for testing the turbine-driven AFW pumps and the MDFP from monthly to quarterly. These proposed changes are considered line-item improvements included in the staff's Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and were l
recommended by the staff in Generic Letter 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation."
Additional proposed changes modify the existing requirements for stationing an individual locally at re-aligned valves in the AFW System and the MDFP System during certain surveillance testing.
These plant specific changes reflect the installation of the MDFP.
A number of other plant specific changes were made to clarify the TS and ensure consistency between the TS requirements and the actual AFW System and the MDFP system operation and design.
In addition, to be consistent with NUREG-1430, " Improved Standard Technical Specifications - Babcock and Wilcox Plants," the licensee has relocated the specific flow and pressure parameters from the current TS Bases to the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
9410250264 941018 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P
ppg
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 2.0 EVALUATION The current TS for the turbine-driven AFW pumps and the MDFP (backup) require staggered pump testing at 31-day intervals.
The proposed change requires staggered pump testing at 92-day intervals.
In accordance with Generic Letter 93-05, the licensee reviewed the operational availability data for these pumps and reported that the availability of the pumps is typically greater that 99%.
Based on this plant specific information, the staff concludes that the proposed increase in the surveillance interval to 92 days is consistent with the plant operating experience and consistent with the guidance in Generic l
Letter 93-05, and is, therefore, acceptable.
The current TS for both the AFW system and the MDFP system have footnotes that l
require a dedicated individual to be stationed at local manual valves that I
have been realigned to perform tests that make the respective system inoperable.
The licensee proposed to revise these requirements, such that, if only one train of AFW or only the MDFP train (system) is made inoperable, the stationing of the dedicated individual would not be required.
This proposed change is consistent with TMI Task Action Plan Item II.E.1.1, " Auxiliary Feedwater System," which recommended that an operator be stationed at (and in communications with the control room) local manual valves during testing whenever the realignment of valves resulted in only one remaining AFW train available for operation. With the addition of the MDFP system, when only one pump train is being tested, there are two pump trains available for operation (either both turbine-driven pump trains or one turbine-driven pump train and the MDFP system).
Thus, the proposed changes to the footnotes are in accordance with the TMI Task Action Plan recommendations and are, therefore, acceptable.
The licensee also proposed a number of changes which reword, to different degrees, the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO), the Action statements and the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) for TS 3.7.1.2 and TS 3.7.1.7.
This plant specific rewording more accurately describes the systems, as they exist at DBNPS and more specifically addresses the intent of the specifications.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and concludes that the proposed changes clarify the requirements of the TSs and are less susceptible to operator misinterpretation.
The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed wording changes are acceptable.
A new Action statement (Action c) has been added to TS 3.7.1.2, which states that "with steam generator inlet valve AF 599 or AF 608 closed, re-open the closed valve AF 599 or AF 608 within one hour or be in HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />."
Each of these valves isolates flow to one steam generator from both the AFW system and from the MDFP system, thereby resulting in decay heat removal capability via only one steam generator.
Such an Action statement is necessary to clarify the LC0 for the MDFP system which only addresses the flow paths to the AFW system.
If one of these valves were closed, the MDFP system would otherwise be considered operable, even though it could only supply one steam generator.
Closure of either of these valves makes both trains of AFW technically inoperable because
. they could not feed both steam generators.
Under certain accident conditions, such as a main steam or feedwater line break, there would be no AFW flow with one of these valves closed (opposite to the break).
This proposed action is basically the same as entering a 3.0.3 Action statement, except that cold I
shutdown is not required.
The proposed change brings the plant to an operating mode (Mode 4-Hot Shutdown) where the LC0 is no longer applicable.
The staff reviewed the proposed new Action statement and concluded that it is necessary for TS clarification and completeness.
The staff also concluded, that the times associated with the proposed Action statement are acceptable, since they are consistent with the times specified in TS 3.0.3.
Hot shutdown, l
in lieu of cold shutdown, is also acceptable because one steam generator and three pumps are still available to remove decay heat and the LCO no longer applies.
The proposed change to add the new Action statement is, therefore, acceptable.
1 The staff reviewed the proposed administrative changes (renumbering, grammar, spacing, and spelling) and the proposed changes to the associated Bases sections, and concluded they have no effect on safety and are, therefore, acceptable.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed changes to TS 3/4.7.1.2 for the AFW system and TS 3/4.7.1.7 for the MDFP system and their associated Bases.
Based on its review, the staff concluded that the proposed changes to increase the surveillance intervals for pump testing from 31 days to 92 days are acceptable.
The acceptability is based on adhering to the guidance of GL 93-05 and verification by the licensee of the availability (greater than 99%) of the AFW pumps and MDFP system.
Based on its review, the staff also concludes that the proposed changes to revise the requirement for a dedicated individual at local realigned manual valves during testing is acceptable.
This acceptability is based on the redundancy that exists under the specified conditions.
This satisfies the recommendations of TMI Item II.E.1.1.
Additionally, the staff concluded that the proposed rewording and additional i
Action statement are acceptable, as they clarify the intent of the specifications, and more accurately reflect the design of the AFW System and MDFP System, thereby reducing the potential for misinterpretation.
The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed changes to TS 3/4.7.1.2 and TS 3/4.7.1.7, and their associated Bases are acceptable and should be approved.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This 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 and changes surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendrr.ent involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no
-- significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 (59 FR 27068). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to need be prepare)d in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 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 proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
W. LeFave Date: October 18, 1994