ML17139C008
| ML17139C008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139C007 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312120484 | |
| Download: ML17139C008 (5) | |
Text
~gal RECI
~ '4
~o
~o~
+>>*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION AMENO~N.
NPF.14 SUSQUEHANN L
C RIC S
I N, UNIT 1 K
N Introduction By letter dated October 7, 1983, the licensee proposed an emergency Technical Specification change regarding the operability of (1) the RHR-Shutdown Cooling Valves HV-151F008 and HV-15lf009 and (2) the RWCU Suction Valves HV-144F001 and HV-144F004 as required in Table 3.6.3-1 (Primary Containment Isolation Valves) of Technical Specification 3.6.3.
The proposed change would delete the requirement in the table. for the RHR-Shutdown Cooling Valves HV-151F008 and HV-151F009 to isolate on Isolation Signal 2, High Drywell Pressure.
The proposed change would also change the requirement in the table for the RWCU Suction Valves HV-144F001 and HV-144F004 from isolating on Isolation Signal A, Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low (Level 3) to isolating on Isolation Signal 8, Reactor Vessel Mater Level-Low, Low (Level 2).
The proposed change would delete these requirements as typographical errors in the table.
Evaluation Technical Specification 3.6.3 addresses the operability of the primary containment isolation valves and Table 3.6.3-1, of Technical Specification 3.6.3, lists the primary. containment. isolation valves by valve number and function, and lists their respective maxiIIIum isolation times and isolation signals.
The first proposed specification change is to delete the requirement for the RHR-Shutdown Cooling Valves HV-151F008 and HV-151F009 to isolate on Isolation Signal Z, High Drywell Pressure.
This proposed specification change corrects a typographical error.
The present system design does not include this provision for Isolation Signal Z and was never intended to include this requirement.
The.present design with the RHR-Shutdown Cooling valves not isolating on a High Drywell Pressure signal is consistent with all the recently licensed BWRs and with the GE Standard Technical Specification.
In addition, Table 3.3.2-1, Isolation Actuation Instrumentation, of the licensee's Technical Specification does not require the RHR System Shutdown Cooling Node Isolation to include an isolation on High Drywell Pressure.
The second proposed specification change is to modify the requirement for the RWCU Suction Valves HV-144F001 and HV-144F004 from isolating on Isolation Signal A, Reactor Vessel Mater Level-Low (Level 3) to isolating on Isolation Signal B, Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low, Low (Level 2).
This proposed specification change also corrects a typographical error.
The present design is for the RWCU Suction valves to isolate on Isolation Signal 8, Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low, Low (Level 2).
This design is consistent with all of the recently licensed BWRs and with the GE Standard Technical Specifications.
In addition, Table 3.3.2-1 Isolation Actuation Instru-mentation, of the licensees Technical Specification requires the RWCU Suction valves to isolate on a Reactor Vessel Mater Level-Low, Low (Level 2).
83i2i20484 83fii8
The NRC staff has made a final determination that the proposed 'changes involve no significant hazards consideration.
The changes are a result of
, typographical errors.
A purely administrative change to Technical Specifications - for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature is an example of a change found to involve no significant hazards consideration.
The administrative change (example (i) of 48 FR 14871) applies to the proposed changes; therefore, the proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration.
Licensee meets the test of prompt notification.
On October 7, 1983, the need for the correction was identified, and on the same day the request for change was transmitted by letter (sent via telecopy facilities) to the NRC staff.
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 insigni-ficant 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 enviromental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) this amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, creation of a new or different accident from any previously evaluated, or a significant reduction in a safety margin and, therefore, 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:
October 7, 1983
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES DL'LB¹2/PM*
DL:LB¹2/BC*
RLPerch:pt ASchwencer 10/14/83 10/20/83 DL:SSPB*
DHoffman 10/21/83
0-
)l H
ii F
t
)
DATED:
November 18 1983 ANENDMENT No. 18 TO NPF-14 Sus uehanna)
DISTRIBUTION:
Document Control (50:387) '.
NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC LBI12 File EHylton RPerch Region I
- JNTaylor, DRP:IE
- wagner, OELD DBrinkman, SSPB HDenton DEisenhut/RPurple
- LHarmon, IE File (2) 1JHiller JSauder IDinitz
- WJones, gA TBarnhart (4)
'I