ML20083K564
| ML20083K564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083K561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505100239 | |
| Download: ML20083K564 (2) | |
Text
,
em:
s 4
j l
E UNITED STATES
- dgli )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
...../
gu WASHINGTON. D.C. 20s55 0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.198 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY 08 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 30, 1995, Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.6.1.2.a and its Bases to delete the requirement to perform a Type A test (Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate) every 40 10 month intervals and add the requirement that Type A tests (0verall Integrated Containment Leak Rate) shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J, as modified by approved exemptions.
TS 4.6.1.2.b would be revised to delete the reference to the schedule included in TS 4.6.1.2.a which is proposed to be removed.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes will replace the current requirement to perform Type A tests (Overall Integrated Containment Leak Rate) at 40 10 month intervals at P,, 38 psig, during each 10-year service period with the requirement to perform Type A tests in accordance with the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, as modified by approved exemptions.
Currently, Appendix J requires three Type A tests during each 10-year interval. Many plant TS specified the 40 10 month intervals to ensure periodic testing throughout the 10-year interval. Davis-Besse's second 10-year service period started in September 1990. The first Type A test was performed during October 1991, during the seventh refueling outage. Applying the present Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.2.a allows a maximum 50-month interval. The next proposed refueling outage is scheduled to commente in April 1996. The proposed change will allow performance of the next Type A test during the next scheduled outage. Therefore, the proposed TS change will allow an approximate interval of 54 months.
9505100239 950503 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P
. r Satisfactory leakage results are a requirement for the establishment of containment operability. Also, the maximum allowable leakage rate at the I
calculated peak containment pressure would not be changed. Staff findings used to support a proposed rule change to Appendix J conclude that the Type B l
and C tests detect a very large fraction, over 97% of containment leakages.
The overall containment leakage rate at the DBNPS has consistently remained i
well below the surveillance test acceptance criteria. During the five previous Type A tests conducted to date, the leakage rate has never exceeded l
52.6% of L,, the maximum allowable leakage rate at the peak containment i
internal pressure. The Type B and C leak rate testing performed each refueling outage, serves to effectively detect containement leakage caused by the degradation of active containment isolation components (e.g., valves), as well as by sealing materials within containment penetrations. These tests-provide confidence that the high degree of containment integrity demonstrated by the previous Type A tests will continue during the interval to the next Type A test.
Finally, the testing method, acceptance criteria, and the Bases (except for removal of 40 i 10 month schedule) of the TS are not changed by I
the proposed revisions. The required number of Type A tests would not be changed by the proposed revisions. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
j
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
I i
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 i
comments.
l
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 1
Part 20 and changes suveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that i
the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the tyres, 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 fimiing that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 14028). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment,
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on Oe 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 t
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i i
l Principal Contributor: Linda. L. Gundrum Date:
May 3, 1995 l^
i l
i
- - -