ML20114E456

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 85 to License NPF-58

ML20114E456
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/18/1996
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20114E449	List: ML20114E456
References
NUDOCS 9606250300
Download: ML20114E456 (2)

Text

F g# "h9 p

t UNITED STATES f

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON. D.C. 3000H001

• % *****/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

RELATED TO AMENDNENT NO. 85 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUNINATING CONPANY. ET AL.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-440

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated April 26, 1996, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company et al. (the licensees), requested changes to the Improved Technical l

Specifications (ITS) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP).

The

-proposed amendment would correct minor technical and administrative errors in l

the ITS prior to its implementation expected in July 1996.

2.0 EVALUATION A requested change would create a new footnote in Table 3.3.5.1-1, " Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation." The current footnote is incorrect as applied to the high pressure core spray (HPCS) system because it indicates that an interface exists between the annulus exhaust gas treatment (AEGT) system and the HPCS system. Therefore, the existing footnote is incorrect for two listed functions in the table. The NRC staff find: that the new footnote is acceptable because it does not reference the AEGT system. The existing footnote will continue to apply to appropriate system instrumentation that interfaces with the AEGT system.

Another requested change would remove the backup hydrogen purge system (BHPS) valves from the ITS section on drywell isolation valves and place the BHPS valves into the ITS section for primary containment isolation valves. This is correct because the BHPS valves are primary containment valves. The NRC staff l

finds this change acceptable.

l Another requested change would increase the minimum volumes required for the l

diesel generator fuel oil day tank. The licensee performed new calculations to account for instrument uncertainties and to ensure that the diesel generator secondary fuel oil transfer pump does not reach its shutoff point.

Increasing the required minimum tank volumes is conservative and appropriate; therefore, the NRC staff finds this change acceptable.

1 Also, a change is proposed for Specification 5.3.1, " Unit Staff i

Qualifications." By license Amendment No. 70, a change was made to the l

currer,t Technical Specifications to reflect that reactor operators shall comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. This change was not included 4

in ITS which were issued by license Amendment No. 69. The NRC staff has reviewed this change and finds it acceptable for inclusion in the ITS.

9606250300 960618 '

PDR ADOCK 05000440 P

PDR

I

.:'. Finally, the remaining changes are typographical and administrative in nature.

These changes were reviewed by the NRC staff, and were found acceptable.

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 ENVIR0leiENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes to requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to surveillance requirements. 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 public comment on such finding (61 FR 21213).

Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

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

i (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.

4 Principal Contributor:

J. Hopkins Date:

June 18, 1996 i