ML20094M924
| ML20094M924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094M894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9511270294 | |
| Download: ML20094M924 (3) | |
Text
..
eu p
\\
UNITED STATES
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D.C. See8H001
%,,.....,e i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCL N M ig[
{
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 j
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLLMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. I 1
l DOCKET NO. 50-440 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 l
By letter dated April 28, 1995, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, j
et al. (licensees), proposed a change to the Operating License for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1 (Perry). The requested changes would remove License Condition 2.C.(9) from Facility Operating Licensee NPF-58. This 1
i licensing condition was imposed due to the Design Review / Quality Revalidation (DR/QR) program for Transamerica Delaval Inc. (TDI), as endorsed by i
NUREG-1216, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operability and Reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators Nanufactured by Transamerica i
Delaval, Inc.," dated August 1986. The issues leading to the imposition of this condition have been resolved and the license condition is no longer warranted and may be deleted.
1
].
2.0 EVALUATION j
The TDI diesel generators Owners' Group submitted a proposal on December 8, i
1992, on behalf of a number of plants with TDI emergency diesel generators 1
(EDG) including the Perry plant. The Owner's Group proposed removal of diesel i
generator related licensing conditions. These conditions were imposed as part of a technical resolution to address concerns regarding the reliability of the TDI EDGs following the crankshaft failure at Shoreham in August 1983. The technical resolution involved implementation of Phase I and Phase II programs as identified in NUREG-1216. The Phase I program focused on the resolutinn of known engine component problems that had potential generic implications, while the Phase II program focused on the design review of a large set of important engine components to ensure their adequacy from a manufacturing standpoint, as well as operational performance. At that time, the staff concluded that these components merited special emphasis in the area of load restrictions and/or maintenance and surveillance. The 16 major components which were identified included connecting rods, crankshafts, cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, piston skirts, and turbochargers.
Engine load restrictions were addressed in the plant specific Technical Specifications, license conditions, engine operating i
procedures and operator training, as appropriate, for five of these components. The most critical periodic maintenance / surveillance actions for these components were incorporated as license conditions.
9511270294 951116 PDR ADOCK 05000440 P
I j
i I
On the basis of substantial operational data and inspection results, the Owners' Group provided information in its submittals of November 1992 and December 1993 to demonstrate that the special concerns of NUREG-1216 were no longer warranted. The Owners' Group stated that the TDI EDGs should be treated on a par with other EDGs within the nuclear industry and subjected to l
the same standard regulations, without the special requirements of NUREG-1216.
In addition, the Owners' Group stated that this action will improve l
availability of the engines for service, especially during outages, while maintaining current reliability levels.
The NRC staff and its consultant, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, have completed a review of the operational data and inspection results contained in the Owners' Group submittal relative to the individual components. On the l
basis of the review, the staff concluded that there is adequate justiffcation for removing the present component-based licensing conditions. The staff's evaluation of the Owners' Group submittals is reported in a letter to Mr. R. C. Day, TDI Diesel Generators Owners' Group Clearinghouse, dated March 17, 1994.
l The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal of April 28, 1995, with respect to whether or not the staff's findings from its review of the Owners' Group submittals are applicable to the Perry plant. Appendix D of the Safety Evaluation of the owners' Group submittals identifies the specific license condition components that may be deleted as a result of the review. These condition components encompass and are consistent with those in the Perry operating license. The NRC staff concludes that the license condition is not needed to ensure diesel generator reliability and that the licensee's proposal is consistent with the staff's Safety Evaluation on the Owners' Group submittals. Therefore, License Condition 2.C.(9) may be deleted.
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 involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no pu'lic comment on such finding o
(60 FR 29889). Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR l
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need l
be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUS10N 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 er. dangered 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 Contributors: J. Rajan G. Wunder Date:
November 16, 1995 i
l l
i l