ML20084R898
| ML20084R898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R884 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506090450 | |
| Download: ML20084R898 (3) | |
Text
.
fgid l fCg%
y*
4 UNITED STATES j b.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
\\
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION BELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-80 AND AMENDMENT NO. 101 TO FACILITY OPEpiTING 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 dated September 20, 1994, as supplemented by letter dated April 14, 1995, Pacific Gas and Elcctric Company (or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendments implement recommended changes from Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specification Imfrovements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation." Specifically, the amendments implement TS changes corresponding to the following GL 93-05 line numbers:
4.2.1, 5.14, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 8.1, 8.5, 9.1, 12, and 13.
The April 14, 1995, supplemental letter provided additional clarifying information which did not change the staff's initial no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reaister on October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53843).
2.0 BACKGR0VND NUREG-1366, " Improvements to Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements," December 1992, reported the TS line-item improvements that were identified by the NRC staff. The TS improvements were based on an NRC study of surveillance requirements (SRs) and included information provided by licensee personnel that plan, manage, and perform surveillance.
The study included insights from a qualitative risk assessment of SRs based on the standard TS for Westinghouse plants and the TS for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
The staff examined operational data from licensee event reports, the nuclear plant reliability data system (NPRDS), and other sources to assess the effect of TS SRs on plant operation.
The staff evaluated the effect of longer surveillance intervals to reduce the possibility for plant transients, wear on equipment, personnel radiation exposure, and burden on personnel resources. Finally, the staff considered surveillance activities for which the safety benefits are small and not justified when compared to the effects of these activities on the safety of personnel and the plant. The NRC staff issued guidance on the proposed TS changes to all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors in GL 93-05 dated September 27, 1993.
9506090450 950526 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
. 3.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to modify TS SRs as discussed below.
)
(1)
TS SR 4.1.3.1.2 - changes the frequency for testing the movability of l
the control rods from at least once per 31 days to at least once per 92 days.
(2)
TS 3/4.3.2, Table 4.3-2, " Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements," Functional Unit 3.c.4), and 1
TS 3/4.3.3.1, Table 4.3-3, " Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation for i
Plant Operations SRs," - changes the monthly channel functional test to j
quarterly.
1 (3)
TS 3/4.5.1:
(a) TS SR 4.5.1.la.1) - more clearly states that the accumulator water volume and pressure must be verified to be within their limits; (b) TS SR 4.5.1.lb. - specifies that the boron concentration surveillance is not required to be performed if the accumulator makeup source was the refueling water storage tank (RWST);
)
(c) TS SR 4.5.1.2 - relocated to plant procedures.
(4)
TS SR 4.5.2c.2) - clarifies that a separate containment entry to verify j
the absence of loose debris is not required after each containment i
entry.
l (5)
TS SR 4.6.2.ld. - changes the frequency for a containment spray header flow test from at least once per 5 years to at least once per 10 years.
(6)
TS SR 4.6.4.2a. - changes the verification of the minimum hydrogen recombiner sheath temperature from at least once per 6 months to at least once each refueling interval.
(7)
TS SR 4.7.1.2.1 - changes the surveillance frequency for testing each auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump from at least once per 31 days to at least once per 92 days on a staggered test basis.
(8)
TS SR 4.10.1.2 - changes the allowed period of time for a rod drop test from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 7 days prior to reducing shutdown margin to less than the limits of TS 3.1.1.1.
(9)
TS SR 4.11.2.6 - changes the surveillance frequency from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 7 days when radioactive material is being added to the gas decay tanks and adds a requirement to monitor radioactive material concentrations in the gas decay tanks at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when system degassing operations are in progress.
i
_3_
The proposed TS modifications are consistent with the guidance provided in GL 93-05. This guidance is based on the NRC staff findings and recommendations stated in NUREG-1366. NUREG-1366 recognized that testing is important to periodically verify that systems, structures, and components are available to perform their safety functions. Testing is especially critical to reveal degradation and failures that occur while equipmer.t is in the standby mode. The study did find that, while most testing at power is important, safety can be improved, equipment degradation decreased, and an unnecessary burden on personnel resources eliminated by reducing the amount of testing when TS surveillance intervals warranted relaxation.
In addition, the licensee has demonstrated that the propoce1 TS changes are compatible with plant operating experience.
The staff concludes that the proposed TS changes do not adversely affect plant safety ard will result in a net benefit to the safe operation of the facility, and, tnerefore, are acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the California State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards i
consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 53843). 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:
M. A. Miller Date:
May 26.1995 j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _