ML17139B249
| ML17139B249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139B248 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212220556 | |
| Download: ML17139B249 (8) | |
Text
SAFETY 'VALUATION AMENDMENT NO; 6 TO LICENSE NPF-l4 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC'STATION; UNIT 1 DOCKET N0.-50-387 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) changes surveillance requirements for vacuum breakers to be consistent with manufacturer's. test procedure, b).
establishes minimum discharge pressure for the low pressure.coolant injection pump for test purposes, c) changes ECCS actuation instrumentation setpoint allowable values, d) revises applicability of SRV's when the vessel is not pressurized, e) corrects errors in the fire. detection instrumentation table, and f) corrects typographical errors in various technical specifications.
EVALUATION a)
C'ontainment Systems. Surveillance-Requirement In Specification 4.6.4.b.3.a),
the licensee requested a change in the requirement from "to be less than or equal to 0.5 psid" to read
"'to be 0.5'sid + 5%".
The proposed change allows the surveillance requirement to be consistent with the manufacturer's test procedure used to adjust and verify the vacuum breaker opening setpoint.
The highest opening setpoint'llowed by the proposed change is 0.525 psid.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's justification and finds the, change acceptable since the containment depressurization analysis assumes the vacuum breakers remain closed until the wetwell to drywell P'eaches 3.0 psid, and the impact of higher stress on the vacuum breaker shaft and shaft key from a setpoint of 0.525 psid are below the allowable stresses.
8212220SS6 821216 PDR ADQCK 05000387 P
PDR 1
1
I'mergency.
Core Cooling Systems. Surveillance Requirements In Specification 4.5.1.b.2, the licensee requested a change in the requirement from "a test line pressure of 204 psig" to read "a test line pressure of greater than or equal to 204 psig".
The proposed change would allow a greater discharge pressure for testing.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's justification and finds the change acceptable since the change increases the conservatism in the design system-flow rate.
Emergency Core Cooling. Systems Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints In Table 3.3.3-2, the licensee requested changes to the trip setpoint and allowable value for the drywell pressure-high, ADS timer, and RHR LPCI mode pump discharge pressure-high trip functions for the automatic depressurization system.
The proposed changes to allowable values, resulting from analytic limits, are more conservative than the, currently listed allowable values.
The proposed changes to the trip setpoints for= the above function remain within the allowable ranges.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's justification and finds the, changes acceptable.
Safety/Rel ief" Val yes In Specification 3.4.2, the licensee requested a change of applicability from "OPERATIONAL. CONDITIONS 1,; 2, and 3.," to read "OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS', 2, (except during low power physics testing with the reactor pressure vessel closure head removal) and 3.".
The change would exempt the SRY' from being required when the vessel is not-;
pressurized, allowing operational flexibilitywithout impacting plant safety.
The. staff has reviewed the licensee's justification and finds it acceptable, however, the change will be incorporated by changing.
Specification 3.10,.1 under Special Test Exceptions from "The provisions of S'pecifications 3.6.1..1, 3.6.1.3 and 3.9.'1 and Table 1 2 may be suspended to permit. the reactor pressure.
vessel closure head..."
to read "The provisions of Specifications 3.4.2, 3.6.1..1, 3.6.1.3 and 3.9.1 and T'able 1,.2 may be suspended to permit the safety valve function of the safety/relief valve to be inoperable, the reactor p'ressure vessel closure head..."'.
Fire Detection. I:nstrumentation In Table 3.3.,7.9-1, the licensee requested a change in instruments operable in access area 1-3C from ionization 13 total, 6 minimum to read NA for both columns, and from photoelectric NA total, NA minimum to read 13 total, 6 minimum.
The proposed change corrects typogr aphidal errors in these columns.
The detectors in Fire Zone 1-3C are photoelectric per the original design and installation of the system.
The staff finds this change acceptable.
)
~
J P
. &( 'lL " 'I',
e
'IIN 1
f)
Typographical Errors The licensee has proposed changes to various technical specifications/
tables/figures to correct typographical errors.
The staff has reviewed these changes and finds them acceptable.
The changes have no impact on plant safety.
The proposed changes are:
Specification 3.1.3.5b.l.
Change "withdrawn control rod scram with..." to read "withdrawn control rod with..."
Table 3.3.2-1, item 2.b Change "Drywall Pressure" to read "Drywell Pressure".
Table 3.3.2-1, items 3.g, 4.c, 7.c Change "W Temperature" to read " ATemperature".
T'able 3.3.2-. 1, item 4.a Change "W Flow" to read
" AFlow".
Table 3.3.2-1, item 4.f Change "W Pressure" to read
" aPressure".
Table 3.3.7.5-1, item 11.c.
Change "Gldg." to read "Bldg.".
Page 3/4 3-88 Change "TABLE 3.3.7.12.-1" to read "TABLE 3.3.7.11-1".
Page 3/4 3-89 Change "TABLE 4.3.7.11.1 (Continued)" to read "TABLE 3.3.7.11-1 (C'ontinued)".
Specification 4.8.4.3.b.2.
Change Under-voltage.
RPS Division A " >110.7 VAC" to read N > 110.7 VAC".
Page 8 3/4 3-8 Under Water Level Nomenclature, change "WEIGHT ABOVE VESSEL ZERO" to read. "HEIGHT ABOVE. VESSEL ZERO".
t
)
I 0
- 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We 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, he 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.
CONCLUSION 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 regu~.ations 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, Date DEC 1 6 1982
7
< ~
Il
,f 3
'l 4
~