ML20082H912

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 99 & 98 to Licenses DPR-80 & DPR-82,respectively

ML20082H912
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/11/1995
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20082H910	List: ML20082H912
References
NUDOCS 9504170421
Download: ML20082H912 (2)

Text

_.

e

_e 3

i 8'

7 UNITED STATES

/I E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION

)'I

'E WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY-THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED'TO AMENDNENT NO. 99 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0; DPR-801

'f W

'AND AMENDMENT NO.

98 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.' DPR-82 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter of February 16, 1994, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS)

- for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2.

The proposed amendments would revise TS 4.6.1.2, " Containment Integrity," to allow a more flexible schedule for testing the primary containment integrated leakage rate.

i-2.0 EVALUATION Section III.D.I.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the licensee to perform three Type A tests at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period and that the third test be done when the plant is shut' down for the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI). -TS 4.6.1.2 requires that the.

Type A tests be performed at. intervals of 40 months plus or minus 10 months i

and that the third Type A test within the 10-year ISI inspection period be I

done when the plant is shut down for the 10-year ISI. The proposed TS change.-

would eliminate these requirements and allow Type A tests to be performed at' approximately equal intervals over the 10-year period.

With 18-month refueling outage cycles at DCPP, the licensee would have to perform Type A tests during the second, fourth, and sixth refueling outages in each 10-year ISI interval to meet the 40 110-month requirement and would also i

' have to perform a fourth Ty>e A test during the seventh refueling outage to

)

meet the requirement that tie third test be done when the plant is shut down for the 10-year ISI. To avoid a fourth test, the licensee has requested an 1

amendment to allow the three Type A tests to be done at roughly equal intervalt over 10 years.

The-40 110-month requirement would impose hardship on the licensee without increasing the level of quality or safety. The proposed amendments have no l

safety consequences because the intent of the Appendix J requirements relating to containment leak-tight integrity would be achieved by three approximately i

equally spaced tests in each ISI period.

l-9504170421 950411 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P

PDR

j

. The staff has considered the amendment request to relax the requirements that Type A tests be done at 40 il0-month intervals in each 10-year service period and that the third Type A test in each period be performed when the plant is shut down for the 10-year ISI. The staff concludes that these requirements are not required to ensure safe operation of DCPP and that the licensee's alternate proposal meets the intent of Appendix J.

Therefore, the staff finds the amendment request acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the California State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

These amendments change 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (59 FR 14893). 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.

5.0 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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors:

M. H. Miller M. A. Miller Date:

April 11, 1995