ML20106H679
| ML20106H679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106H674 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9603210341 | |
| Download: ML20106H679 (3) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%.....j#
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30686 0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.
1 PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-440
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 17,1996, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP). The proposed amendment would allow one main steam line's leakage rate to be as high as 35 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) as long as the total leakage rate through all four main steam lines does not exceed 100 scfh until the end of Operating Cycle 6.
2.0 EVALUATION The current TSs equire that the primary containment leakage rates shall be limited to less than or equal to 25 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) for any one of the four main steam lines through their isolation valves. During the current refueling outage, it was determined that the "C" main steam line had a leakage rate of 28.1 scfh. However, the combined leakage through all j
four main steam line isolation valves is less than 75 scfh. Therefore, the i
total leakage is less than the value of 100 scfh which is the effective combined limit when 25 scfh is considered for all four main steam lines.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request and finds that the effective combined limit of 100 scfh for all four main steam lines is maintained by the proposed amendment. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed amendment to be acceptable.
3.0 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
i The need for a change to main steam line leakage rate limits became apparent on February 11, 1996, during surveillance testing of the main steam lines.
Repair of the responsible valve to reduce the leakage below 25 scfh would provide no'significant benefit to safety, while' involving an estimated 2 person-REM of radiation exposure and an estimated 2200 person-hours of work.
Plant startup from the current refueling outage is scheduled for March 27, 1996. The license amendment is needed prior to that date to avoid delaying plant startup, therefore, the NRC staff finds that exigent circumstances exist in that the Commission and licensee must act quickly and that time does not allow publication of a notice allowing 30 days for prior public comment.
9603210341 960318 PDR ADOCK 05000440 i
P PDR
I
. i The NRC staff has reviewed the circumstances surrounding the amendment request, and finds that the circumstances could not have been avoided and the licensee made a timely request for amendment. Therefore, the staff finds that i
the license amendment may be issuad in an exigent manner.
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 licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The staff's review is presented below.
The amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the change does not increase the probability of a steam line rupture, and the effective combined leakage limit for all four main steam lines is not changed.
The amendment does not create the possiblity of a new of different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because no physical alterations to the plant are being made.
The. amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the effective combined leakage limit for all four main steam lines is not changed.
Based on this review, the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
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 l
comments.
I
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with res'pect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area 1
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The I
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 j
l cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission made a final no i
significant hazards consideration determination with respect to this i
amendment. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for I
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 this amendment.
j
O
7.0 CONCLUSION
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 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:
March 18, 1995