ML17146A873
| ML17146A873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17146A872 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707160109 | |
| Download: ML17146A873 (4) | |
Text
~gS III0I C
p 4<<*y4 UIMITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATIOH BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT HO. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HO.
NPF-14 AND AMENDMENT NO. 37 TO FACILITY OPERATIHG LICENSE NO.
NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POKER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, IHC.
DOCKET NOS.
50-387 AND 50-388 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1
AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 29,
- 1986, as revised April 6, 1987, Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-14 and NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would change the Unit 1 and the Unit 2 Technical Specifications to add an Action Statement, related to 4. 16 kv ESS bus degraded voltage protection system, to Table 3.3.3-1 of both Units.
A second change to the Technical Specifications requested by the licensee in the September 29, 1986 submittal related to the provision of a two-hour time window for degraded voltage protection system monthly surveillance.
This second change was with-drawn by the licensee in its April 6, 1987 letter.
Accordingly, the safety of the second change is not evaluated.
2.0 EVALUATION At Susquehanna Units 1 and 2, the 4. 16 kv ESS bus degraded voltage protection systems consist of two independent undervoltage protection'ystems with different undervoltage relay setpoints at 84K and 65% of the nominal system voltage.
The degraded voltage protection system for 4. 16 kv buses utilizes a
two-out-of-two logic at the two voltage setpoints of 84K and 65$.
A loss of voltage protection is also provided at 20K of the nominal system voltage.
The Action Statement 36 presently provides directions for action which must be taken if one of the two degraded voltage protection channels is inoperable.
The proposed change would add a second part which would provide directions for actions which must be taken if both the channels are inoperable.
In the event one channel of the degraded voltage protection system, with two-out-of-two logic, is declared inoperable, the Action Statement 36 a) requires that the inoperable channel be placed in the tripped condition within one hour and operation may continue until performance of the next required cannel Functional Test.
In the event both degraded voltage protection system channels are declared inoperable, Action Statement 36 b) would be operative.
Action Statement 36 b) 8707160109 870702 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
~ I l
~
~
~ imposes the same conservative Limitino Condition for Operations (LCO) as is imposed for a loss of a 4. 16 kv ESS bus which is specified in Technical Specification paragraphs 3.8.3. 1 (operation) and 3.8.3.2 (shutdown).
No additional periods of 4.)6 kv ESS bus unavailability have been requested.
The staff finds that the proposed Action Statement 36 b) (which states, "With both channels inoperable, declare the associated 4.16 kv ESS bus inoperable, and take the ACTION required by Technical Specification 3.8.3. 1 or 3.8.3.2 as appropriate.") is appropriate and conservative
- because, the addition of the proposed Action Statement does not increase the unavailability of the 4. 16 kv ESS buses.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within.the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents 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 significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
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 assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Re ister (51 FR 45212) on December,17, 1986 (April 6, 1987 change by CKeesceneee a
no effect on the staff's no significant hazards determination) and consulted with the State of Pennsylvania.
No public comments were received, and the State of Pennsylvania did not have any comments.
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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this a'mendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Mohan C. Thadani and S.
Rhow Dated:
July 2, 1987
4
~
~
1