ML17139B342
| ML17139B342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139B341 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302160060 | |
| Download: ML17139B342 (4) | |
Text
t
~ ~
gpR RECgg, (4
Mp0~i I
~o
+a**+
UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION AMEND 1
. 9 '-14 SUS0UEH M
N; -UNIT'1 Introduction The licensee proposed an amendment to license condition 2.C.(23)(e) to the operating license for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 to re'quire qualification of the Recirculation Dishcarge Valve Assemblies (HV-1F031 A
and B) prior to exceeding the 25-cycle operational limit vice before reaching the 25-cycle operational limit.
Evaluation The licensee has requested a change in license condition 2.C.(23)(e) of License No. NPF-14 to read:
"Prior to exceeding the 25-cycle operational limit, PPSL shall qualify the Recirculation Discharge Valve assemblies (HV-1F031 A and B) including new Limitorque actuators.
The replacement actuators shall be wired for torque seating type operation."
from the present wording which reads as follows:
"Before the 25-cycle operational limit is reached, PP8L shall replace Recirculation Dischlrge Valve assembly (HV-1F031 A and B) with fully qualified new assemblies including a new Limitorque actuator.
The replacement actuators shall be wired for torque seating type operation."
Supplement No.
4 to the Susquehanna Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0776) states that 25 cycles of operation would not cause excessive seat leakage and, therefore, there is no safety impact from the effect of hard seating.
Also, in Supplement No.
4 to the Safety Evaluation Report, the staff does not require replacement of the entire original valve assemblies as long as the new valve assemblies, which consist of qualified Limitorque actuators and the original valve bodies, are seismically and dynamically qualified as a unit.
The full 25-cycles of operation are required to complete the power ascension program.
As a result of the above, we find this change in license condition 2.C.(23)(e) to be acceptable.
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, 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 impac't appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
8302160060 830207 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
i'll lt 44 t
N Conclusion Me 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 signifcant 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 inimcal to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
F,E8 7
~983.
C
~ ~ l