ML20214E363

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 2 to CPPR-105

ML20214E363
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/17/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214E357	List: ML20214E354 ML20214E360 ML20214E363 ML20214E366
References
NUDOCS 8603260100
Download: ML20214E363 (2)

Text

p# #8 Fg jog UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

. RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT-N0. CPPR-105 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-412 INTRODUCTION In a letter to H. R. Denton dated February 24, 1984, Duquesne Li requested a partial exemption.from General Design Criteria (GDC)ght Company (DLC 4 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Subsequently, by letters dated May 31, July 16, and November 5, 1984, in response to a letter from NRC dated April 10, 1984, DLC provided technical justification for eliminating large primary loop piping ruptures as a structural design basis. F;rthennore, by a letter dated July 9, 1985, DLC requested a schedular p3rtial exemption from GDC 4.

The staff has completed its technical review of the DLC submittal regarding the application <of the " leak-before-break" technology as an alternative to providing p'rotective devices against the dynamic effects resulting from postulated ruptures of the Beaver Valley, Unit ? primary coolant loops.

DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The staff's detailed evaluation and basis for granting the exemption to requirements of GDC 4 are delineated in the schedular Exemption enclosed with the staff's October 11, 1985 letter. The technical evaluation detailed in that Exemption is hereby incorporated into this Safety Evaluation by reference.

The schedular exemption stated that "The Commission hereby approves the requested schedular limited exemption from GDC 4 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, to permit the applicants to elininate the dynamic loading effects associated with the postulated primary loop pipe breaks defined in the FSAR and as described in Part II of this report. These dynamic loading effects include pipe whip, jet impingement, and break associated dynamic transients in the main loop piping, branch lines and branch line supports.

This should (1) eliminate the need to design for pipe whip and jet impingement 0603260100 860317 PDR ADOCK 05000412 A PDR

due to postulated primary loop pipe breaks, (2) eliminate the need for pipe whip restraints (including shims) and jet impingement shields associated with the primary loop pipe breaks defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and (3) eliminate the dynamic loading effects associated with the primary loop pipe breaks defined in the FSAR on primary loop piping, branch lines and their supports. Branch line LOCA loads, includino their dynamic effects, would be retained in the design basis. This exemption will expire upon completion of the GDC 4 rulemaking changes but no later than the second refueling outage."

This amendment does nut contain any new technical information; it merely changes certain statements in the Construction Permit to allow the terms of exemptions be applied.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the issuance of the October 11, 1985 schedular Exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (50 FR 40462).

In addition, the staff has detemined that the amendment to the Construction Permit involves 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 Comission has determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. 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 this amendment.

CONCLUSION In granting the limited schedular Exemption, the staff found that the advanced fracture mechanics techniques used by the applicants provided an assurance that flaws in primary system piping will be detected before they reach a a size that.could Jea'd to unstable crack growth. For this reason, further protection provided by protective devices against the dynamic effects resulting from the discharge from postulated breaks in the primary piping is unnecessary. Additionally, considera' tion of such dynamic effects associated with previcusly postulated pipe breaks is unnecessary. With full protection against dynamic effects provided-by advanced analysis techniques, and based on the considerations discussed above, we conclude that: (1) the proposed amendment to Construction Permit CPPR-105 permitting the use of the Exemption in construction of Beaver Valley, Unit 2 does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, does not involve a

significant decrease in a safety margin, and thus does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by construction and operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to' the health and safety of the public.

Date of Issuance: !! arch 17,1986 l