ML20128C850
| ML20128C850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C847 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212040546 | |
| Download: ML20128C850 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
1'
[sacee,*o u
UNITED STATES l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
e WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055$
}
LAJETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REAIFJLJO AMENDMENT N0. 167 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-si AND AMENDHENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-73 DUOVESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THE TOLED0 EDISON COMPANY fifA O VALLEY POWER STATION. UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-334 AND 50-412 1.0 LyIR0 DUCTION By letter dated August 24, 1992, Duquesne Light Company (CLC) proposed certain revisions to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Appendix A Technical Specifications relating to the schedules for visual inspection of snubbers and visual inspection acceptance criteria and, to the Unit 2 Technical Specifications only, the acceptance criteria for snubber functional inspection.
Specifically, the amendments revise Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.7.12 and add Table 4.7-1 for both Unit 1 and Unit 2 in accordance with the alternate surveillance requirements endorsed by the Comission in Generic letter 90-09,
" Alternate Requirements for Snubber Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions." DLC also has proposed changes to the Uni' ' snubber functional inspection acceptance criteria which are not part o. Generic Letter 90-09.
These changes would make the functional acceptance criteria identical to those used for Unit 1.
Certain other mir.or editorial changes are proposed to assure document consistency.
2.0 EVALUATION Surveillance nequirement 4.7.12 prescribes the schedule for a subsequent snubber visuai inspection that is based upon the number of inoperable snebbers 9212040546 921120 l
PDR ADOCK 05000334 p
.. of a given type found during the current visual examination.- Because the examination schedule for each type of-snubber is based only u)on the absolute number of inoperable snubbers of.the same type found during tie previous visual examinations with no consideration given to the total population of snubbers (of that same type), tha examination schedule can be excessively restrictive for plants with a la. Je snubber population of a given type. The intent of the alternative visual uxamination schedule endorsed by._ Generic Letter 90-09 is to allow licensees the f'.exibility to perfors visual l
examinations and corrective actions during plant outaget while maintaining the confidence level that would be provided otherwise by the existing schedule.
The proposed new schedule would specify the permissible number of inoperable snubbers as a-function of snubber population of each type. The basic examination interval is the normal fuel cycle up to 24 months. This interval may be extended to as long as twice the fuel cycle or reduced to as short as two-thirds of the fuel cycle depending on the number of unacceptable snubbers of the same type found during the _ visual examination.
The examinatinn interval may vary by 125% to coincide with the actual outage.
In the event one or more-snubbers are found inoperable during a visual examination, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) of Technical Specification-4.7.12 requires the DLC to.estore or replace the inoperable snubber (s) to-operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or declare the attached system inoperable and fallow the appropriate Action Statement for that system.
This LC0 is not changed by the amendments, however the permissible number of inoperable snubber (s) and the subsequent visual examination interval will now be datermined in accordance with the revised visual examination schedule.
DLC has deviated from the guidance of Generic Letter 90-09 in the proposed wording of the Visual. Inspection Acceptance Criteria. The deviation would allow reclassification of an otherwise unacceptable snubber as acceptable provided that either the cause for rejection is remedied for that snubber and others that generically might be susceptible, or the affected snubber passes.
the functional _ testing criteria. This-either...or-provision remains unchanged from.the current requirements. The either...or_ provision was reviewed previously by the staff and was approved for Unit 1 by Amendment 135 (January 23, 1989) and for Unit-2 by Amendment 21-(September 25,1989).
The proposed enange to the-functional inspection acceptance criteria (Unit-2 only) would provide spccific acceptance criteria for tidraulic and mechanical snubbers. This would provide a more accurate reflectico of the surveillance testing performed un;the different types of snubbers. The propos'ec change would make thn functional testing acceptance criteria for Unit 2 consistent with those as given in NUREG-0452. Revision ~ 4, " Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Press "ized Water Reactors" (STS), and-identical to those specified for Unit We have reviewed the changes proposed by DLC and find that-the proposed-changes to SR 4.7.12 are consistent with (except for the previously reviewed-deviation mentioned above) the guidance provided in Generic Letter 90-09 for i
t 4
l-
..y..
r
. incorporating the alternate visual inspection requirements and with the STS snubber functional inspection acceptace criteria. We find also that the editorial changes proposed would assure document consistency. Therefore, we find the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a surveillance requirement. The NRC staff has determined that the amendmeni.s involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has issued previously a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazatds consideration and there has-been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 47129). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilitv criteria for categorical exclusion set forth.in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impt.ct statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 STATE CONSUL _TATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of tha proposed issuance of the cmendments.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Co;nmission has concluded, based on the considarations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will r.ot 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 amendments will not be inimical to the corsnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
J. Rajan Albert W. Do Agazio Dated:
November 20, 1992