ML20216G471

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 92 to License NPF-58

ML20216G471
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/12/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216G461	List: ML20216G457 ML20216G471
References
NUDOCS 9803190422
Download: ML20216G471 (3)

Text

anh p

UNITED STATES g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-0001

~r...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION BELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 92 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.

i PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANL UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-440

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In response to the resolution of Generic Safety issue (GSI) B-56, " Diesel Geneator Reliability,"

i the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 94-01, " Removal of Accelerated Testing and Reporting Requirements for Emergency Diesel Generators," dated May 31,1994. In this GL, the staff stated that licensees may request removal of the technical specification requirements for emergency diesel generator (EDG) accelerated testing and special reporting requirements.

The GL stated that a maintenance program for monitoring and maintaining EDG performance in accordance with the provisions of the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65) and consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.160 would provide a basis for the staff to approve a license amendment request to remove the accelerated testing and special reporting requirements from the technical specifications.

1 By letter dated December 23,1997, the licensee for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), proposed revisions to Technical Specification 3.8.1, "A.C. Sources - Operating,"

consistent with the recommendations of GL 94-01. The proposed changes would delete the accelerated testing requirements for the EDGs. During the conversion to the improved Technical Specifications, the special reporting requirements were relocated from the technical specifications to the PNPP Operational Requirements Manual (ORM). Therefore, upon approval of this license amendment request, the licensee will remove the special reporting requirements from the ORM.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensing basis assumes a high degree of reliability for the EDGs to start and perform their intended design function following a loss of offsite power. Technical specification sunreillance requirements have historically been relied upon to demonstrate that this established reliability goalis being continually maintained. Typically, the EDGs would be tested monthly in order to demonstrate their reliability. Whenever an excessive number of monthly failures occurred, the technical specifications would require that the frequency of EDG testing be increased (i.e.,

accelerated). This practice would demonstrate that corrective actions were effective and provide timely test data to establish a numerical confidence level associated with EDG reliab;iity. Concurrent with the increased frequency of testing, technical specifications would 9803190422 980312 PDR ADOCK 05000440 P

PDR 1

also require licensees to prepare and submit special test reports documenting the causes and corrective actions being taken.

GSI B-56 focused on staff concems that accelerated testing of the EDGs was detrimental and led to long term degradation of EDG reliability. As part of the technical resolution of GSI B-56, the staff concluded that the proposed maintenance rule (i.e.,10 CFR 50.65) provided an acceptable method of ensuring EDG reliability. The elements of a program for the EDGs would include the performance of a detailed root cause analysis of individual EDG failures, effective corrective actions taken in response to individual EDG failures, and implementation of EDG preventive maintenance consistent with the maintenance rule.

When GL 94-01 was issued on May 31,1994, the intent was that licensees could voluntarily implement the provisions of the maintenance rule for EDGs in advance of the mandatory implementation date of July 10,1996. Implementation would follow the guidance provided in NUMARC 93-01, " Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," dated May 1993, which was endorsed in Regulatory Guide 1.160,

" Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," dated January 1995.

In exchange for these voluntary actions, both the accelerated testing requirements and special test reports could be removed from the technical specifications.

As stated above,10 CFR 50.65 required that all licensees implement the provisions of the maintenance rule no later than July 10,1996. In their letter dated December 23,1997, the licensee stated that the PNPP was in compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65 and that they had implemented a maintenance program consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.160. In Inspection Report 50-440/96014, dated January 29,1997, the staff concluded that the licensee had developed and implemented a maintenance program that met 10 CFR 50.65.

In summary, the licensee's letter of December 23,1997, requested removal of the accelerated testing requirements of EDGs in accordance with the recommendations of GL 94-01. The staff has determined that the licensee has implemented the provisions of the maintenance rule as described in 10 CFR 50.65. The staff concludes that the licensee has developed an appropriate program to maintain the reliability goals of the EDGs. Therefore, the staff finds the licensee's request to remove the technical specification requirements for accelerating te_ sting of EDGs to be acceptable. As previously discussed, the special reporting requirements have previously been relocated from the technical specifications to the ORM. The staff finds that removal of these special reporting requirements, as permitted in the GL, is also 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 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 i

o a.

surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no s.ignificant 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 radiction exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant barards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 4326). 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: (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: Douglas Pickett Date: March 12, 1998 l

i

,