ML20138L049

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 214 to License NPF-3

ML20138L049
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/11/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138L047	List: ML20138L049
References
NUDOCS 9702200336
Download: ML20138L049 (3)

Text

. _.. _... _ _ _.. _. _ _ -... _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _ _._.... _. _ _ _.. - _ _ _. _. _

.j

. A natuq>,t t

i p

UNITED STATES

]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i '~

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20056 0001 t

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 214 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 i

TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY f

i CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY l

i l

8lE i

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY j

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 i-DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated September 12, 1996, Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees),

i submitted a request for changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

-(DBNPS), Unit No.1 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested amendment would revise TS 3/4.1.3.4, " Reactivity Control Systems - Rod Drop Time, " and l

TS 3/4.5.2, " Emergency Core Cooling. Systems - Tavg it 280*F," to change surveillance test intervals from every 18 months to each refueling interval l

(s 730 days, nominally 24 months). Additionally, the proposed amendment would l

remove a footnote for TS 4.5.2.b to delay venting one high pressure injection l

discharge line until the tenth refueling outage.

i 2.0 EVALUATION i

The licensees performed the safety assessment for the proposed changes to the surveillance test intervals in accordance with Generic Letter 91-04, " Changes in Technical Specification Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month i

Fuel Cycle," requirements.

This assessment entailed reviewing the historical l

maintenance and surveillance test data at the bounding surveillance interval limit, performing an evaluation to ensure that a 24-month surveillance test interval would not invalidate any assumption in the plant licensing bases, and the determination that the effect on safety is small.

This license amendment request is one in a series of amendments which are being submitted as cost beneficial licensing actions to extend surveillance i

testing intervals from every 18 months to each REFUELING INTERVAL (defined as j

s 730 days, nominally 24 months, as defined in TS Definition 1.42). The 1

licensees propose replacing the phrase "at least once per 18 months, during shutdown" with "at least once each REFUELING INTERVAL," for TS 4.1.3.4.c,

" Reactivity Control Systems - Rod Drop Time," Surveillance Requirement (SR) c.

l This SR requires, prior to reactor criticality, demonstrating through I

9702200336 970211 i

DR ADOCK 05000346 j

PM

3 I',,

measurement the rod drop time of safety and regulating rods. The licensees evaluated the 18-month TS surveillance test data and maintenance history for 4

1 the rod drop times for the period since 1985. This period was selected as l

most representative of current operating conditions since many changes occurred after the loss of feedwater event in 1985. There were no failures or l

significant degradation noted in the 18-month surveillance test data and no i

maintenance failures that would have resulted in the components being

)

inoperable in accordance with TS requirements. D8NPS has a " Type A" Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) design. This type of design has not experienced the problems with crud in the ball check valves of the CRDMs like the " Type C" i

design. The licensees concluded that no new failure modes would be introduced as a result of the extension of the surveillance interval and found that no changes were required to any accident analysis assumptions.

The other change proposed involves TS 3/4.5.2, " Emergency Core Cooling Systems, ECCS Subsystems - Tavg ;t 280'F," SR 4.5.2.b.

This SR verifies the ECCS piping to be full of water by venting the ECCS pump casings and discharge piping high points at least once every 18 months or prior to operation after the ECCS piping has been drained. The licensee reviewed the surveillance tests performed and found the test results were acceptable. No maintenance i

activities were found to be associated with this surveillance requirement.

The licensee determined that the frequency at which the ECCS piping is vented is not an initiator nor a contributor to the initiation of an accident described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report.

In addition, calculations i

have been performed to show that if the line downstream of the normally closed l

high pressure injection line isolation valves were devoid of water, the forces i

on the line downstream would not exceed acceptable stresses if the high pressure injection system actuated. Based on these findings the licensees determined that the effect on safety would be small.

The pro >osed amendment would remove a footnote for TS 4.5.2.b to delay venting one hig1 pressure injection discharge line until the tenth refueling outage.

During the tenth refueling outage a vent valve was installed on one high pressure injection discharge line to meet the requirements of this TS.

Therefore, the footnote is no longer required and the change is acceptable.

Accordingly, the staff concludes that the licensees perfomed the safety assessment for these proposed changes to the SRs in according with the GL.

These SRs do not alter the intent or method by which the surveillances are conducted and do not modify the manner in which the plant is operated. The past surveillance, preventive maintenance, if applicable, and the frequency i

and the type of corrective maintenance indicate that increasing the surveillance interval will not affect the reliability of the rod drop times for the safety and regulating rods or the ECCS venting requirements.

Therefore, the.. staff finds the proposed changes 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.

l l

l

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes 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 has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 52971). 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.

5.0 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:

L. Gundrum Date: February 11, 1997 4