ML20196D275

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 94 to License NPF-58

ML20196D275
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/23/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196D265	List: ML20196D259 ML20196D275
References
NUDOCS 9812020190
Download: ML20196D275 (2)

Text

.-

9ttry UNITED STATES

[f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

WASHINGTON, D.C. ensas anni l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 94 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILL'UMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWEA PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-440

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During an NRC inspection conducted from February 23 through March 5,1998, at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), a discrepancy was identified between the licensee's calculation and the plant technical specification (TS) limit for the Division 3 emergency diesel generator (EDG) 7-day fuel oil supply requirement. The discrepancy involved a rounding error in the calculation. The calculated fuel oil requirement of 36,140 gallons for 7 days of Division 3 EDG l

operation had been non-conservatively rounded down to 36,100 gallons which was used as the L

TS limit for the 7-day fuel oil supply requirement. During the resolution of the discrepancy, the licensee discovered that, in the fuel oil requirement calculation, the potential of vortex fermation above the eductor suction nozzle located near the bottom of the fuel oil storage tank was not examined.

l By letter dated September 3,1998, the licensee submitted a request to amend the PNPP TS.

l-The proposed TS changes revise the Division 3 EDG 7-day fuel oil supply requirement from 36,100 gallons to 36,700 gallons and the 6-day fuel oil supply requirement from 31,500 gallons to 32,000 gallons to reflect the additional fuel oil needed to prevent vortex formation above the eductor suction nozzle and eliminate the rounding error.

2.0 EVALUATION The division 3 EDG' is provided with a fuel oil storage tank having a capacity of 39,375 gallons.

At the current TS limit, vortex formation could occur above the eductor nozzle after 6 days and 21.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of continuous EDG operation at the rated capacity To overcome the effects of

' vortex formation, an additional depth of fuel oil in the storage tank is required to be maintained.

The licensee re-performed the fuel oil requirement analysis based on the EDG operating continuously for 7 days at the rated capacity. The !!censee determined that the 7-day fuel oil The licensee stated that similar concerns were investigated on the Division 1 and Division 2 EDGs. The Division 1 and Division 2 EDG TS limits have sufficient margins to prevent vorter fumation above the eductor suction nozzles.

h DR b

l P

l-

requirement should be 36,700 gallons instead of the current TS requirement of 36,100 gallons.

The 6-day fuel oil requirement should be 32,000 gallons instead of the current TS requirement of 31,500 gallons. In addition, any rounding error similar to that discovered in the previous calculation was eliminated in the revised calculation.

Based on its review, the staff concludes that the licensee's revised calculation and TS limit for the Division 3 EDG fuel oil requirement will ensure that vortex formation does not occur during 7 days of Division 3 EDG continuous operation following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).

Thus, the Division 3 EDG will have a reliable EDG fuel oil storage and transfer system and adequate fuel oil supply for 7 days of continuous operation following a LOCA. The proposed changes are consistent with the guidance described in NUREG-1434, Revision 1, " improved Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric BWR/6 Plants," and Standard Review Plan Section 9.5.4 regarding EDG fuel oil storage and transfer systems. Therefore, the staff finds the above proposed TS changes acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTARQN 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 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 this amendment involves no significar,t hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 53960). 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: David Shum, NRR Date: November 23, 1998

,