ML20126H667
| ML20126H667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126H664 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301050279 | |
| Download: ML20126H667 (5) | |
Text
7..
6 6-l (6)
Systems Intecrity Duquesne Llyht Company shall implement a program to reduce leakage from systems outside containment that would or could contain highly radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident to as low as practical levels.
This program shall include the following:
1.
Provisions establishing preventive maintenance and periodic visual inapaction requirements, and 2.
Integrated leak test requirements for each system at a frequency not to exceed refueling cycle intervals.
(7)
Iodine Monitorina Duquesne Light company shall implement a program which will ensure the capability to accurately. determine the airborne iodine concentration in vital areas under accident conditions.
This program shall include the following:
1.
Training of personnel, 2.
Procedures for monitoring, and 3.
Provisions for maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment.
(8)
Backun Method for Determinina Subcoolina Marcin-Duquesna Light Company shall implement a program which will ensure the capability to accurately monitor the Reactor Coolant System subcooling margin.
This program shall include the following:
1.
Training of personnel, and 2.
Procedures for monitoring.
(9)
Surveillance Interval Extension The performance. interval for those surveillance requirements identified in the licensee's request.for surveillance interval extension dated' August 18, 1992, as' modified by letter dated September 2, 1992, shall be i
extended to 24 months to coincide with the cycle 9 L
refueling outage.
l Amendment' No.168 l
9301050279 921231 PDR ADDCK 05000 4-P a...
Il
[ps no,g v
UNITED STATES
/'
NUCLE AR HEGULATORY COMMISSION 3
.S W ASWNO TON. O. C. 70556
\\
/
%...../
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF fiUCLEM REACTOR REGULAT10f]
RELATED TO AMEliDMEt4T NO.168 10 FACIllTY OPERA 11NG1L(INSE l10. DPR-66 QV0VESNELIGHTCOMPAtli OHIO EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY DEAVER VAllfY POWER STATION. UNIT f40. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application August 18, 1992, as amended by letter of September 2, 1992, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) proposed a change to facility Operating License No. DPR-66.
Specifically, the proposed change would add License Condition 2.C(9) that would allow extension of the performance interval for certain surveillance requirements.
The proposed extensions would allow the identified surveillance testing to coincide with the completion of the 9th refueling outage (9 RF0), but the extended intervals are not to exceed 24 months.
2.0 Q1KUSS10N The design length for Cycle 9 was 514 effective full power days which represents about 20 months of power operation with a capacity factor of 85%.
The cycle was originally planned to start in June 1991 and last until February 1993.
Because of delays in startup from the refueling outage followed by other unscheduled outages, 9 RF0 has been rescheduled to begin April 12, 1993.
This revised outage date results in the expiration of certain surveillance test intervals prior to the outage.
The proposed license condition would provide for extension of the intervals until the outage.
Without the extensions, an otherwise unnecessary plant shutdown would be required, in its application for amendment, DLC has asserted that the reliability defined by the normal surveillance interval would not be significantly reduced by the extensions.
This assertion is based upon the following considerations:
Present monitoring of instrumentation and ongoing technical ~
specification surveillance tests provide assurance that the equipment involved in the extended surveillance tests will remain in an operable condition until testing is performed at the next refueling outage.
Periodic surveillance tests have been performed since the last l
refueling outage to monitor system and component performance and to detect any system degradation.
Surveillance testing will be performed during the requested extension interval providing added assurance that the reliability of equipment associated with the extended surveillance will not be degraded significantly by the proposed limited-time extension.
The electronic components in the reactor protection system'and engineered safety features acturtion system have shown a very high-degree of reliability.
Section XI of the ASME Code defines a refueling interval as 18 months but no more than 24 months.
Based on this definition, all IST testing required at refueling intervals does not have to be performed until the unit is shutdown for refueling.
The surveillar.ce affected by this request for interval extensions are identified as follows:
i Technical Specification Surveillance Test 4.3.1.1.1 Table 4.3-1 Reactor Trip System-Instrumentation Channel Calibration and functional Test 4.3.1.1.3 Table 3.3-2 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Response Times 4.3.2.1.1 Table 4.3-2 Engineered Safety features Actuation System Instrumentation Channel Calibration and Functional
. Test-4.3.2.1.3 Table 3.3-5
. Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Response Times 4.3.3.1 Table 4.3-3 Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation Channel Calibration 4.3.3.3.1 Table 4.3-4 Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation Channel Calibration 4.3.3.5 Table 4.3-6 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation Channel' Calibration
.. +.
g 9
.s
---w ic,v--,+
y y
.w-.mwy
,w-.,.,---
,,9_,em.-,m,-.-
,-n.y,,-.
w,----,-we-,,n,._,,-,vm-+
+-
wwv4-v-+*--
vw--E-w---.--r-w..-,,v----w-,=.---e--*-*-ow-'
l l
Itchnical Specification Surveillance Test 4.3.3.8 Table 4.3-7 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Channel Calibration 4.4.5.3 Steam Generator Category C-3 Inspection i
4.4.9.3.1.b Overpressure Protection System Channel Calibration 4.4.ll.l.b PORV Operability Channel Calibration 4.4.11.3 Valve Exercise 4.5.1.2.b Accumulator Operability Channel Calibration 4.5.2.f Valve Exercise i
4.5.3.1 Valve Exercise 4.6.3.1.2.e Containment Isolation Valves Check Valve lift Test 4.6.3.1.2.f Valve Exercise 4.7.3.1.c Valve Exercise 4.7.13.1.b Auxiliary River Water. Test 4.8.1.1.1.b and 4.8.1.2 Emergency Switchgear Operation and-Diesel Generator Auto Load Tests 4.8.1.1.2.b-Diesel Generator Test and Inspection 4.8.2.3.2 DC Distribution Battery Cell Conditions and Charger Capacity 4.8.2.4.2 DC Distribution Battery-and Charger Service Testing
I.
4-3.0 UALVATIOff The delays experienced following the last refueling outage and subsequent unscheduled outages have resulted in the need to reschedule the next refueling outage so as to obtain optimum fuel burnup prior to refueling.
Thus, the start of the next refueling outage has been moved from early February 1993 to April 12, 1993.
The impact of this rescheduling is that certain surveillance tests that are performed during refueling will fall due (including the extensions permitted by Technical Specification 4.0.2) before the start of the outage, unless the surveillance intervals are extended.
- 1 Periodic surveillance requirements were not intended.to affect adversely safe plant operations simply because a specified surveillance interval does not coincide with 31 ant operating schedules.
Normally, variations in those schedules can se accommodated through the existing technical specifications.
Specifically, Technical Specification 4.0.2 is an administrative control which ensures that surveillance tests are performed within the specified interval, but it provides for an allowable tolerance for performing surveillance beyond the nominal surveillance interval.
This-tolerance provides operational flexibility to allow for scheduling and performance considerations while still ensuring that the reliability of the equipment or system associated with the -
surveillance is not significantly degraded beyond that obtained from the nominal specified surveillance interval.
However, circumstances can develop wherein-the relief provided by Technical Specification 4.0.2 is inadequate, but good cause for additional relief can be demonstrated by the licensee.
Such is the case here, in this instance, DLC has provided compelling evidence that the change in the refueling schedule was not undertaken for a reason or in a manner adverse to safety, that reasonable assurance exists that equipment associated with the subject surveillance will not-be degraded significantly by the requested interval extensions, and that good cause exists for granting the l
extensions.
The surveillance interval extensions proposed by DLC would result in a slightly diminished confidence in the reliability that would be provided by Technical Specification 4.0.2.
The proposed license condition would extend the allowable surveillance intervals from 22\\ months (nominal 18 months plus i
41 months allowable extension per 4.0.2) to a maximum of 24 months.
The. staff L
believes that the additional l\\ months extension.is not significant, therefore, the staff finds the proposed license condition acceptable.
DLC requested extension of the due date for the Category C-3 Inspection of i
steam generator tubes specified by_ Technical Specification 4.4.5.3.b.
This inspection, when required, is to be conducted at least once per 20 months.
The provisions of Technical Specification 4.0.2 are not noted as being_
inapplicable,_ and therefore DLC may_ extend the surveillance interval from the nominal 20 months to 24 months, consistent with Technical Specification-4.4.5.3.a. __The Category.C-3 inspection is due' January 11, 1993; thus, under the provisions of Technical Specification 4.0.2 the Category C-3 inspection--
l
. could be conducted as' late as May 11, 1993, t
-c.3
,y--w n
y
-9,w---n,c e,
-r y
,--y cw-se-----
- -v--
+,-'-*ri m*
- -W-w=--w-+-+.*--'-vP*-er, v 'w ac e
r*
-w---+ww
+vaw-e-w--
-w-t"
-' '==
- ~
e-}
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no connents.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types of any ef fluents 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding i
(57 FR 47128). Accordingly, the 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 the amendment.
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Albert W. De Agazio Date: December 31, 1992 w