ML17139B048
| ML17139B048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139B047 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209280110 | |
| Download: ML17139B048 (8) | |
Text
~
~
)
eI ~
SAFETY EVALUATION -I'I SUSgUEHAtINA STEAN ELEC R
C STA ON UNIT 1 OCKE NO.
0-Introduction The licensee proposed changes to the Technical Specifications of the operating license for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 which are as follows:
a)
In Specification 4.7.1.3.c, delete observation well Number 2 from ultimate heat sink surveillance requirements b)
In Specification 4.7.3.c, correct a typographical error on the
., setpoint for the low pressure alarm instrumentation on the condensate transfer pump discharge c)
In Specification 4.6.5.l.c.2, change the test flow rates to bring the values back within the assumptions used in the LOCA offsite dose analysis, and clarify the volumes associated with the
=.. secondary containment surveillance testing.
Evaluation a)
Observation Well Number 2 OFFICE/
SURNAME/
In Specification 4.7.1.3.c, the licensee requested a change in the groundwater measurements from "at each of the seven observation wells" to read "at observation wells 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1113".
The licensee has also requested deletion of footnote**.
In support of this request the licensee provided in a letter dated August 3, 1982, an analysis on the high water level in piezometer Number 2.
In this analysis, the licensee indicated the southwest portion of the spraypond is cut into bedrock and the remainder of the spraypond is supported on soil.
The piezometer s are monitored to assure that remedial actions are taken if groundwater elevations around the spraypond rise to levels high enough to present a liquefaction potential in the event of an earthquake.
Liquefaction relates only to granular soil.
The six wells identified in the proposed technical specification are located in soil and are thus relevant to the purposes of the technical specification.
Since piezometer Number 2 is located in an area where the spraypond is supported on bedrock, the ':licensee concluded that piezometer Number 2 cannot be used to assess the Ipossibility of liquefaction occurring.
The staff has evaluated and concurs with the licensee's analysis.
High groundwater levels have been observed at this well.
However, high groundwater levels at this location are irreleva'nt to the purpose of the technical specification.
Therefore, deletion of piezometer Number 2 from surveillance requirements for groundwater measurement is acceptable.
8209280ii0 820903 PDR ADOCK 050003B7 P
PDR DATE$
~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
I
~ ~ ~
II
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NRC FORM 318 (10.80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~5.960
~
~
2 b)
Condensate Transfer Pum Discharge Low Pressure Alarm In Specification 4.7.3.c.4, the licensee requested a change to the low pressure alarm setpoint from "less than or equal 113 psig" to read greater than or equal to 113 psig".
The.current specification setpoint is a typographical error and is inappropriate for a decreasing pressure alarm.
The setpoint for the low pressure alarm on the condensate transfer pump discharge is correctly stated in Specification 4.5.1.c.5.
Therefore, the staff finds this change to be acceptable.
c)
Standby Gas Treatment System Test Flow Rates In Specification 4.6.5.1.c.2, the licensee requested a change to the test flow rate from "3050 cfm + 10'X" to read "less than or equal to 2885 cfm", and a change to the associated footnote from "2300 cfm" to "2000 cfm".
The offsite dose analysis assumes a
100% air change per day in the secondary containment.
The licensee has identified the 3050 cfm and the 2300 cfm values to be based. on preliminary rather than final calculat'ions.
The proposed flow rates of 2885 cfm and 2000 cfm correspond to the free air volumes of Unit 1 secondary containment (Zone I and III) and Unit 1 interim secondary containment (Zone I and with the interim barrier installed in Zone III), respectively, for a 100'5 air change per day.
Since the bases for the requested changes are consistent with the rationale and justification used in the formulation of the original technical specification, the staff finds the change to the test flow rates to be acceptable.
In Specification 4.6.5.1.c.2, the licensee also requested a change from "for both Units 1 and 2" to read "from Zone I and Zone III", and a change to the associated footnote from "while Unit 2 secondary containment is isolated from Unit 1 secondary containment" to read "while the secondary containment interim barrier is installed in Zone III". The proposed changes clarify the intent of secondary containment testing of Unit 1 with and without the interim barrier in Zone III. Testing of the Unit 2 secondary containment will be covered by Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's justification and analyses and finds the changes clarifying the secondary containment for Unit 1 acceptable.
Environmental Cons)deration Me have determined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amount nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment involves action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4),',that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this statement.
I'FFICE/
SURNAME/
DATE Q 00
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~\\0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0
~ F 0'
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
NRC FORM 818 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFlClAL RECORD COPY USG PO: ISSI-SS5-960
0 l
Concl usi on We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment 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, and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment 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 operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) 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.
Dated:
September 3, 1982
- SEE PREVIOU ORC FOR CONCURRENCES.
OFFICE P SURNAME$
OA1E P DL: LB2 RPerch/lg 3 82 DL:LBInI1*
HRushbrook 9/
/82'E:HGEB*
~ ~ 0
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~\\ ~ ~i~ ~ ~
~
~
MFliegel 9/
/82 DL:LB81
~ ~ ~ I
~ OI 0 ~ ~ 0 0
JYoungblood 9/ Z/S2
~ ~ ~iM ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY uSeFO:19III-@~960
~
h P
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, at:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant incre e in the t
f t
involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amen e t. does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is easonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be en ngered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will b conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance o
this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to e health and safety of the public.
Dated:
September 3,
1982 OFFICEII SURNAME/
DATE Q DL:LB¹2 RPerch/1g 9/3/82 DL:LB¹1 HR I'ook 9/y /82 D
B NFliegel 9/Q/82 DL:LB¹1 BJYoungblood 9/
/82 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY US0 PO: 1981~5-960
4 f
1 4