ML20079Q181
| ML20079Q181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079Q179 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9111150313 | |
| Download: ML20079Q181 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
p uoq
+
o UNITED STATES E'
}' %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.
j WA&HING T ON, D. C. 20555
\\*...+/
SAFETY EVA_L_U,ATION BY THE_0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT10f1 RElt.TED TO APEllDPENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. itPF-73 DUQUESt1E LIGHT COMPANY 9100 EDISON COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT f10. 2 ppCKET NO. 50-412
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 2, 1991, Duquesne Light Conpany (DLC/the licensee) proposed a revit, ion to the Limiting Conditions for Operation applicable to the Peactor Coolant Systen as specified in the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2) Technical Specifications (TSs), Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.5.
The proposed revision would add additional actions to be taken in the event a pressurizer code safety lif t involving the discharge of water or the loop seal.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION On September 13, 1989, the IIRC documented the completion of the review of the open issues associated with NUREG-0737, item II.D.1, Relief and Safety Valve l
Testing. The staff concluded that most of the requirements of item II.D.1 were inet, and OLC could proceed to complete the remaining actions without further 11RC review.
Our letter of September 13, 1989, also provided our consultant's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (EGG-itTA-8480) documenting the results of the EG&G Idaho, Inc., review, One of the open actions identified in the TER related to the reliability of i
I the BVPS-2 safety valves following a lift involving discharge af water or the loop seal.
The safety valve testing program results suggested that valve inspection and maintenance are important to the continued operability of the safety valves. The TER noted that in certain tests, the safety valve reopened after closure and chattered before the test was terminated. After refurbishment and/or replacement of the galled surfaces and damaged parts, the test valve would first perform satisfactory, but closing chatter would recur in subsequent tests.
It was hypothesized that the closing chatter was the result of repeated valve actuation in loop seal and water discharge tests. Decause of this, it was recommended that the safety valves should be inspectec after each lift involving loop seal or water discharge, and that the inspection requirement should be incorporated into plant procedures or the Technical Specifications.
9111150313 911015 PDR ADOCK 05000412 P
l
. In response to this reconeendation. DLC has proposed to incorporate pressurizer safety valve ins)ection and maintenance requirements in the BVPS 2 Technical Specifications. Tae proposed amendment would require cold shutdown of the unit following any pressurizer safety valve lift that involved loop seal or water discharge.
In addition, inspection of the safety valve and necessary corrective action to return the valve to operable status would be required prior to increasing reactor coolant system temperature. These
~
requirements are intended to improve the reliability of the safety valves and are identical to the requirement incorporated into the Beaver Volley Power Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications by Amendment 115 (September 8,1987).
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and concludes that the changes will improve the reliability of the pressurizer safety valves by eliminating or reducing the potential for safety valve chatter upon valve closure.
Ti.crefore, the staff finds the preposed changes acceptable.
3.0 STATE C0tlSULTAT10N in accordance with the Connission's regulations, good faith attempts were made to contact the pennsylvania State official regarding proposed issuance of the amendment.
4.0 ENVIR0tyNT,AL, CON 51D{ RATION The amendment charges a requirement with respect to installation or use of a f acility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 Cfk part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public concent on such finding (55 FR 21969). Accordingly the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set Iorth 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 amendnient.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Connission has concluded, based en the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable asIurance that the health and safety of the publicwillnotbeendangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Albert W. De Agazio Date: October 15, 1991
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _