ML20100C803

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 78 to License NPF-58

ML20100C803
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/19/1996
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20100C802	List: ML20100C799 ML20100C803
References
NUDOCS 9601310221
Download: ML20100C803 (16)

Text

~--

. ~

I~~

mnar4k UNITED STATES

~

g j

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

2 g

.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 3000H001 k*****

[

l SAFETY EVAL 0ATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

i RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 i

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. 1 l

l DOCKET NO. 50-440 l.0 INTRODUCTION f.

,By letter dated January 10, 1996, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company,

[

ct al. (licensees), proposed a change to the Technical Specifications-(TSs) i for-the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No.1 on an emergency basis.

j This amendment grants a one-time extension of the performance intervals for certain Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements. Without this amendmen't, the plant would have to shut down six days prior to the scheduled end of-the current fuel cycle.

i 2.0 EVALUATION Surveillance extensions are requested for the logic system functional testing i

of the reactor mode switch-shutdown position and the manual scram. The PNPP I-reactor. protection system (RPS) has redundancy, diversity, and independent trip systems such that a single failure will neither cause nor prevent a required reactor scram. Also, instrumentation failure is a small fraction of the scram failure probability.. Therefore, a one-time extension of these RPS j

response time surveillance intervals is acceptable.

Also requested for extension are surveillances to check the logic for opening j

and closing the scram discharge volume vent and drain valves.

Industry l

l reliability studies for boiling water reactors (BWRs), prepared by the BWR j

Owners Group, show that the overall safety systems' reliabilities are not dominated by the reliabilities of the logic system, but by that of the mechanical components, which are consequently tested on a more frequent basis.

Since the probability of a relay or contact failure is small relative to the i

probability of mechanical component failure, increasing the logic system test L

interval represents no significant change in the overaL1 safety system unavailability. Since operation of these valves is verified at least once per 92' days, a one-time extension of the logic surveillance is acceptable.

Surveillances for the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage control system (LCS) are requested for extension. One surveillance is the simulated l

actuation test. This test is supplemented during the operating cycle by tests performed on the system components including channel checks, channel functional tests, and inservice testing. Based on the periodic testing performed, a one-time extension to the surveillance interval is acceptable.

i t

9601310221 960119 i

PDR ADOCK 05000440 PDR p

s

. Finally, the surveillance for the MSIV LCS Rosemount transmitters (Model 1153) is proposed for extension. The NRC has accepted the report, "30 Month Stability Specification For Rosemount Model 1152, 1153, 1154 Pressure Transmitters." That report supported the extension of the calibration interval for the transmitters from 18 to 30 months based on a reduction in the drift allowance. These transmitters have sufficient margin to account for the drift allowance over a 30 month period, and therefore, a one-time extension of the surveillance interval is acceptable.

~

3.0 EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES Sy letters dated March 24, June 9, and June 30, 1995, the licensee requested of TS surveillances in order to reach extensions to a large number (over 100) NRC staff granted those surveillance its planned refueling outage date. The extensions by license amendment (LA) 75 dated November 29, 1995. A period of 90 days was allowed for implementing LA 75. During a review of LA 75 for

implementation on January 3,1996, the licensee discovered that four additional surveillance extensions needed to be requested. These surveillances were not included in the original extension requests as shown by marked-up TS pages, although justification for the surveillance extensions was included.

LA 75 was issued to allow the licensee to operate until its planned refueling i

outage date.

Failure to grant the additional four surveillance extensions i

would cause the plant to shut down six days before its planned refueling outage date.

The licensee discovered the need for the additional surveillance l

' extensions on January 3,1996, and made a timely application for amendment on l

January 10, 1996. Therefore, the staff concludes that an emergency situation exists in that failure to act in a timely way will cause premature shutdown l

and that the licensee could not avoid this emergency situation.

f 4.0 BASIS FOR FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the j

licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The staff's review is presented below.-

l The amendment-does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because there is sufficient margin to account for transmitter drift, there is periodic testing of components during the operating cycle, and the logic system test extension I

represents no significant change in the overall system unavailability.

L This change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of l

accident from any accident previously evaluated because no physical alterations to the plant are.being made, and no ' changes to plant operating

[

procedures are being made.

l' This change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety i

because plant requirements are not being changed, there is sufficient margin i

to account for transmitter drift, there is periodic testing of components l

4 m

l

_3_

during the operating' cycle, and the logic system test extension represents no signidicant change ' n the overall system unavailability.

Based on this review, the three standards of 10 CFR 50.g2(c) are satisfied.

j Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

5.0 STATE CONSULTATION

l 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.

6.0 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 made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to this. amendment.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical l

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no i

environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in J

connection with the issuance of this amendment.

7.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonabla 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 defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

J. Hopkins Date: January 19, 1996 l

j

January 19, 1996 Distribution w/ enc 1s:

Docket File GHill(2)

PUBLIC JWerniel 1

PD3-3 Reading CGrimes ACRS JRoe WAxelson, RIII Mr. Donald C. Shelton Acting Vice Presidctt Nuclear - Perry Centerior Service Company P. O. Box 97, A200 Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT:

AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 (TAC NO. M94430)

Dear Mr. Shelton:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 78 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1.

This amendment revises the Technical Specifications in response to your application dated January 10, 1996.

This amendment grants a one-time extension of the performance intervals for certain Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements.

A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A notice of issuance and final determination of no significant hazards consideration and opportunity for hearing will be included in the Commission's next biweekly Federal Reaister notice.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Jon B. Hopkins, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-440

Enclosures:

1.

Amendment No. 78 to License No. NPF-58 2.

Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: EMERG.AMD Ta,eosive e copy of this document, indcate in the box: "C" = Copy without e *E' = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy 0FFICE PD33-LA l f>

PD33-PM E

OGC 7Y "

p/ HIClblL c lC PD33:PD lE NAME DFoster-Curse %n.

JHopkins\\ n f 8HoAA JWerMIR GMarcus 6 4/7 DATE 01/6/96

/d k 01/l'*//96 M

01//fg96 01// 1/96 Olhr/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

v# *g\\

j UNITED STATES p

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

g WASHINGTON. D.C. SDeeHeat at V

Te January 19, 1996 1

l.

Mr. Donald C.-Shelton Acting Vice President Nuclear - Perry Centerior Service Company 2

P. O. Box 97, A200.

j Perry, ON 44081,

b SU8 JECT: ANENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 (TAC NO. M94430)

[

Dear.Mr. Shelton:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 78 to Facility Operating I

l License No. NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1. This amendment revises the Technical Specifications in response to your application

'l dated" January 10, 1996.

t i

This amendment grants a one-time extension of the performance intervals for l

certain Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements.

A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A notice of issuance and i

final determination of no significant hazards consideration and opportunity for hearing will be included in the Commission's next biweekly Federal Reaister notice.

Sincerely, 8

e on B. Hopkins, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-440 I

Enclosures:

1.. Amendment No. 78 to License No. NPF-58 2.

Safety Evaluation i

'cc w/encls: See next page i

o-

--+-<w-4

- -,, --,. -. ~ -. -. - -.

2 j

l i-Mr. Donald C. Shelton Perry Nuclear Power Plant Centerior Service Company Unit Nos. I and 2 i

{

cc:

j Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Mr. James W. Harris, Director i

i Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Division of Power Generation j

2300 N Street, N. W.

Ohio Dept. of Industrial Relations i

Washington, D. C.

20037 P.O. Box 825 i

Columbus, Ohio 43216 Ms. Mary E.-0'Reilly Centerior Energy Corporation The Honorable Lawrence Logan 300 Madison Avenue Mayor, Village of Perry Toledo, Ohio 43652 4203 Harper Street Perry, Ohio 44081 l

i Resident Inspector's Office U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Robert V. Orosz Parmly at Center Road Mayor, Village of North Perry i

Perry, Ohio 44081 North Perry Village Hall i

4778 Lockwood Road j

Regional Administrator, Region III North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 j

U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

801 War'renville Road Attorney General Lisle, Illinois 60532-4531 Department of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Lake County Prosecutor Columbus, Ohio 43216 Lake County Administration Bldg.

i 105 Main Street Radiological Health Program i

Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ohio Department of Health P.O. Box 118 j.

Ms. Sue Hiatt Columbus, Ohio 43266-0118 OCRE Interin Representative 8275 Munson Ohio Environmental Protection l

Mentor, Ohio 44060 Agency DERR--Compliance Unit i

Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

ATTN: Mr. Zack A. Clayton 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 P.O. Box 1049 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 Ashtabula County Prosecutor Mr. Thomas Haas, Chairman 25 West Jefferson Street Perry Township Board of Trustees i

Jefferson, Ohio 44047 3750 Center Rd., Box 65 Perry, Ohio 44081 Mr. James D. Kloosterman Regulatory Affairs Manager State of Ohio i

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Public Utilities Commission Company East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 P.'0. Box 97, E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Mr. Richard D. Brandt, Plant Manager Cleveland Electric Illuminating Mr. James 'A. Williams, Chief of Company Staff Perry Nuclear Power Plant

. Ohio Emergency Management Agency P.O. Box 97, SB306 2825 West Granville Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Worthington, Ohio 43085 l

II

i j

f**%e,\\

UNITED STATES p

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. aggeHept k...g 3

i I

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINAT4NG COMPANY. ET A!..

l D0CKET N0. 50-440 i

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT N0. I 1

{.

ANENDNENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE

]

Amendment No. 78 j

License No. NPF-58 i

l 1.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

=

A.

The application for amendment by The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Centerior Service Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and Toledo Edison Company 4

(the licensees) dated January 10, 1996, complies with the standards l

and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR

' Chapter I; i

l S.

The' facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the i

Commission; i

l C.

There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and l

safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be corducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; i

D.

The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.

The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of l

the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

~2.

Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifi-cations as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(t) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-58 is hereby l

amended to read as follows:

F i

o

i I

(2) Technical Specifications i-The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, as revised through Amendment No. 78 are hereby incorporated into this license.

l The C eveland Electric Illuminating Company shall operate the facility i

in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.

3.

This license amendment is effective immediately.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION i

f W

Gail D. Marcus, Director Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of issuance:

January 19, 1996 i

4 i

?.

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 78 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 DOCKET N0. 50-440 i

i Replace the following pages of the Appendix "A" Technical Specifications with the attached pages. The revised pages are identified by Amendment number and contain vertical lines indicating the area of change.

e Remove Insert l

3/4 1-5 3/4 1-5 3/4 3-8 3/4 3-8 i

3/4 6-8 3/4 6-8 3/4 6-8a

'e

)

S i

i l

i i

1

l r

REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS l

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued)-

4.1.3.1.3 All control rods shall be demonstrated OPERABLE b'J.,5.

y wrformance of Surveillance Requirements 4.1.3.2. 4.1.3.3. 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.

4.1.3.1.4 The scram discharge volume shall be determined OPERABLE by demonstrating:

a.

The scram discharge volume drain and vent valves OPERABLE at least once per 18 months

• by verifying that the drain and vent valves:

l 1.

Close within 30 seconds after receipt of a signal for control rods to scram. and 2.

Open when the scram signal is reset.

l b.

Proper level sensor response by performance of a CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST of the scram discharge volume scram and control rod block level

.ipstrumentation at.least once per 31 days.

A 4

I Operability testing may be extended to be performed during the fifth refueling outage.

i PERRY - UNIT 1 3/4 1-5 Amendment No. 78 h

X N

TABLE 4.3.1.1-1 (Continued)

E i

U REACTOR PRuiECTION SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION SURVEILLANCE pmiiREnEnis i

CHANNEL OPERATIONAL l

CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL CHANNEL COMn!TIONS IN WHICH FtmCTIONAL UNIT CHECK _

TEST CALIBRATIG6 SURVEILLANCE REQUIRED 8.

Drywell Pressure - High S

Q-R'S

1. 2'"

9.

Scram Discharge Volume Water Level - High a.

Level Transmitter S

0 R'8

1. 2. 5*'

b.

Float Switches NA G

R.

1, 2. 5*'

10. Turbine Stop Valve - Closure NA Q

R 1

l

.1

11. Turbine Control Valve Fast l

w

. Closure. Valve Trip System 011 Pressure - Low NA Q

R 1

l

12. Reactor Mode Switch Shutdown Position NA R

NA 1., 2. 3. 4. 5 I

13. Manual Scram NA W

NA 1.2.3.4.5 l

l

~

(a) Neutron detectors may be excluded from CHANNEL CALIBRATION.

g (b) The IRM and SRM channels shall be determined to overlap for at least 1/2 decades during each startup after i

g-entering OPERATIONAL CONDITION 2 and the IRM and APRM channels shall be detemined to overlap for at least

=

1/2 decades during each controlled shutdown, if not perfomed within the previous 7 days.

e-Y (c) Deleted h

3!

--w7-r

+'d

-g e

aa"= m

=t-

.i.

a-~1 m-

+s

--We

• -.-r-z--

.- - g u

m m

a

r CONTAIIMENT SYSTEMS

}

MSIV LEMKE CONTROL SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION j

3.6.1.4 Two independent MSIV leakage control system (LCS) subsystems shall be OPERABLE.

' APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1*. 2*, AND 3*.

EllE:

With one MSIV leakage control system subsystem inoperable, restore the 1

rable subsystem to OPERABLE status within 30 days or be in at least HOT within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, j

SURVEILLANCE REOUIREMENTS 4.6.1.4.Each MSIV leakage control system subsystem shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:

j a.

At least once per 31 days by verifying:

. ',1.

Blower OPERABILITY by starting the blower (s) from the control room and operating the blower (s) for at least 15 minutes.

2.

Inboard heater OPERABILITY by demonstrating electrical continuity of the heating element circuitry by verifying the inboard heater draws 8.28* 10% amperes per phase.

b. 'During cach COLD SHUTDOWN. if not performed within the previous 92 days, by cycling each motor operated valve, including the main steam stop valves, through at least one complete cycle of full travel.

c. At least once per 18 months by:

I 1.

Performance of a functional test ** which includes simulated actuation of the subsystem throughout its operating sequence, and verifying that each automatic valve actuates to its correct position, and the blower (s) start (s).

2.

Verifying that the blower (s) develop (s) at least the below required vacuum at the rated capacity:

a) Inboard system,15" H,0 at = 100 scfm.

b) Outboard system,15" H O at = 200 scfm.

2 The provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not a>plicable from the effective date of this amendment until the completion of Operating Cycle 6.

Required testing may be extended to be performed during the fifth refueling outage.

i PERRY - UNIT 1.

3/4 6-8 Amendment No. 63, 11, 78 i

L CONTAIW1ENT SYSTEMS MSIV LEAKAGE' CONTROL SYSTEM SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued) l d.

By verifying the inboard flow and inboard and outboard pressure instrumentation to be OPERABLE by performance of a:

1.

CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST at least once per 31 days, and 2.

CHANNEL CALIBRATION at least once per 18 months **.

l i

l I

4 l

1 Required testing may be extended to be performed during the fifth refueling outage.

PERRY - UNIT 1 3/4 6-Ba

. Amendment No. 78

i pm\\

UNITED STATES f

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j.

g WASHINGTON, D.C. SpeeMeet i

(.....

1 i

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

5

'RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 i

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.

i I

}

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. 1 i

DOCKET N0. 50-440 I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

i l

By letter dated January 10, 1996, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (licensees), proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TSs) j;i for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. I on an emergency basis.

This amendment grants a one-time extension of the performance intervals for i

certain Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements. Without this-i amendmen't, the plant would have to shut down six days prior to the scheduled j

end of the current fuel cycle.

2.0 EVALUATION l

Surveillance extensions are requested for the logic system functional testing of the reactor mode switch-shutdown position and the manual scram. The.PNPP reactor protection system (RPS) has redundancy, diversity, and independent j

trip systems such that a single failure will neither cause nor prevent a j-required reactor scram. Also, instrumentation failure is a small fraction of j

the scram failure probability.. Therefore, a one-time extension of these RPS t

l response time surveillance intervals is acceptable.

j Also requested for extension are surveillances to check the logic for opening j

and closing the scram discharge volume vent and drain valves.

Industry i

reliability studies for boiling water reactors (BWRs), prepared by the BWR j

Owners Group, show that the overall safety systems' reliabilities are not dominated by the reliabilities of the logic system, but by that of the mechanical components, which are consequently tested on a more frequent basis.

Since the probability of a relay or contact failure is small relative to the j

probability of mechanical component failure, increasing the logic system test interval represents no significant change in the overa 1 safety system unavailability. Since operation of these valves is verified at least once per 92 days. a one-time extension of the logic surveillance is acceptable.

i Surveillances for the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage control system n

(LCS) are requested for extension. One surveillance is the simulated actuation test. This test is supplemented during the operating cycle by tests L

performed on the system components including channel checks, channel L

functional tests, and inservice testing. Based on the periodic testing.

performed, a one-time extension to the surveillance interval is acceptable.

e l

- Finally, the surveillance for the MSIV LCS Rosemount transmitters (Model 1153) is proposed for extension. The NRC has accepted the report, "30 Month Stability Specification For Rosemount Model 1152, 1153, 1154 Pressure Transmitters." That report supported the extension of the calibration interval for the transmitters from 18 to 30 months based on a reduction in the -

drift allowance. These transmitters have sufficient margin to account for the drift allowance over a 30 month period.. and therefore, a one-time extension of the surveillance interval is acceptable.

3.0 EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES By letters dated March 24, June 9, and June 30, 1995, the licensee requested I

- extensions to a large number (over 100) of TS surveillances in order to reach its planned refueling outage date. The NRC staff granted those surveillance extensions by license amendment (LA) 75 dated November 29, 1995. A period of i

90 days was allowed for implementing LA 75. During a review of LA 75 for implementation on January 3,1996, the licensee discovered that four additional surveillance extensions needed to be requested. These surveillances were not included in the original extension requests as shown by marked-up TS pages, although justification for the surveillance extensions was included.

i 1.A 75 was issued to allow the licensee to operate until its planned refueling i

i outage date. Failure to grant the additional four surveillance extensions 4 ~

would cause the plant to shut down six days before its planned refueling outage date. The licensee discovered the need for the additional surveillance extensions on January 3, 1996, and made a timely application for amendment on i

January 10, 1996. Therefore, the staff concludes that an emergency situation 2

j exists in that failure to act in a timely way will cause premature shutdown j

and that the licensee could not avoid this emergency situation.

4.0 BASIS FOR FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION l

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the i

issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the l

licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The staff's review is presented below.

I The amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or i

consequences of an accident previously evaluated because there is sufficient margin to account for transmitter drift, there is periodic testing of components during the operating cycle, and the logic system test extension represents no significant change in the overall system unavailability.-

This change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because no physical alterations to the plant are being made, and no changes to plant operating l

procedures are being made.

This' change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because plant requirements are not being changed, there is sufficient margin j

to account for transmitter drift, there is periodic testing of components

.~.

i i

j'-,

i durig the operating cycle, and the logic system test extension represents no significant change ' n the overall system unavailability.

a Based on this review, the three st.ndards of 10 CFR 50.g2(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

5.0 STATE CONSULTATION

4 In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was 1

notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

)

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

1 i

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the i

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 j

the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may i

be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to this. amendment.

l Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categcrical 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 this amendment.

7.0 CONCLUSION

i The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, '. hat:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the pro >osed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance witi the Commission's regulations, i'

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.

i Principal Contributor:

J. Hopkins 1

Date: January 19, 1996 i

i l

l i

-