ML20245K187

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 136 to License NPF-3

ML20245K187
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	08/15/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245K179	List: ML20245K174 ML20245K187
References
NUDOCS 8908180328
Download: ML20245K187 (2)

Text

..

(U*

A

• [ pita \\(

UNITED STATES D

,[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l5 E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -

~

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 136 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 I.

TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY.

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

1.0 -INTRODUCTION By application dated May 26, 1989, Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Operating License No. NPF-3 to revise the surveillance requirements in the TechnicalSpecifications(TS)forsnubbers.

2.0 DISCUSSION The TS require 10 percent of the snubbers to be functionally tested every 18 months with an allowance of extension us to 25 percent of the interval. This means that the functional testing must be done at a maximum of 22 5 months from the previous testing. There is an additional limitation in Specification 4.0.2b that restricts the total maximum combined interval for 6,a three:

consecutive tests to less than 3.25 times the specified intervat or 60 months.

These intervals were specified to be consistent with refueling outages since the plant must be shut down during the testing. Davis-Besse's next refueling outage is scheduled to commence February 1,1990.

However, the next snubber functional testing must be completed by September 15, 1989 because of the 3.25 restriction. This complication is not unusual at nuclear plants because of the increasing design length of fuel operating cycles and.the length of outages for refueling, maintenance and modifications.

In these cases, a one-time change to the Technical Specifications is granted to allow an extension (usually from one to a few months) until the next scheduled plant outage. The licensee proposed' a permanent change to allow extensions up to 12 months; i.e., a total interval of 30 months, with compensation provided by increasing the number of snubbers to be tested in direct proportion to the amount of extension past 18 months.

[$$$h P

4,,

3.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff informed the licensee that an ANSI standard for examination and testing of snubbers is in the final stages of development. The NRC staff is represented on the responsible subcommittee with the intent of endorsing this standard for industry-wide use. Therefore, the staff recommended that the licensee accept a one-time extension of this surveillance interval at this time and consider incorporating the requirements of the ANSI standard after it is issued. By letter dated July 10, 1989, the licensee proposed limiting the TS change to a one-time application during this cycle of operation. However, the extension rauested was for a maximum of 30 months, even though the testing is presently scheduled after an interval of only 18 months.

By telephone call on August 2, 1989, the licensee agreed to a further limitation to retain the 18-month requirement with the 1.25 multiplier of Specification 4.0.2a remaining applicable. Thus, the extension only affects the 3.25 limitation for three consecutive intervals. Since the last tests were completed September 14, 1988, the next tests would be required by March 14, 1990, six weeks after the sixth refueling outage is scheduled to commence. Specification 4.0.2a would allow the testing to be delayed an additional 4.5 months to July 31, 1990 for any unforeseen delays in commencing the refueling outage.

Since this will avoid an unnecessary transient in shutting down solely for the performance of this surveillance, the NRC staff finds that this benefit outweighs the need to complete the third interval of testing within the 3.25 limitation and finds this one-time change acceptable.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to 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 effluents 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. 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 enviromnental impact statement nor 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and 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: Thomas V. Wambach Dated:

August 15, 1989

/