ML17146A976
| ML17146A976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17146A974 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709300337 | |
| Download: ML17146A976 (8) | |
Text
~S REoy P
O~
Cy OO Ie
/p "*"
SAFETY UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 71 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 PENNSYLVANIA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
DOCKET NO.. 50-387 SUS UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 14, 1987, Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company requested, on an emergency
- basis, an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-14 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Unit l.
The proposed amendment would provide a one-time relief for the Intermediate Range Monitors from the requirements of Technical Specification 3.0.4, and permit a mode change from the present condition 4 to condition 5.
The requested relief is to be effective on September 14, 1987 for a one-time mode change only.
2.0 EVALUATION On June 4, 1987, the staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 87-09 to address the outcome of the staff's recent initiatives to improve Technical Specifications.
GL 87-09 provided guidance for three problems related to the applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS}.
One of three problems involves unnecessary restrictions on mode changes by Technical Specification Section 3.0.4.
In the GL 87-09, the staff concluded that the Specification 3.0.4 unduly restricts facility operation when conformance with Action Requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation.
For an LCO that has Action Requirements permitting continued operation for an unlimited period of time, entry into another specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with the Action Requirements.
In the September 14, 1987 submittal, the licensee stated that as a result of its performance of the required 60-month performance discharge test, one division of the 24-volt dc batteries has been rendered inoperable.
This in turn has rendered the associated IRMs of Control Rod Block instrumentation inoperable and precluded mode change from the current Operational Condition 4 to required Operational Condition 5 (for the purpose of continuation of the scheduled refueling operations).
Pending improvement of the Technical Speci-fications in accordance with the GL 87-09, the licensee has requested a one-
~- 8709300337 85000387 70+23 t PDR POOCH, 0
- PDR, P
y>
time relief for IRMs from the requirements of specification Section 3.0.4 to permit a mnde change from Condition 4 to Condition 5.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and finds that the licensee's argument is acceptable and the requested relief is consistent with the provisions of the GL 87-'9.
The staff, therefore, finds the proposed change acceptable.
3.0 EMERGENCY BASIS In its September 14, 1987 letter, the licensee has shown that Unit 1 is currently ready to enter Operational Condition 5, but is unable to do so as a
result of Technical Specification Section 3.0.4 restriction on mode change due to the post-test discharge of the division I 24-volt dc batteries.
The licensee states that it will take about three days to recharge the batteries and enter the Operational Condition 5 to proceed with its refueling operations.
This will delay the licensee's restart for Cycle 4 operations by about three days, effectively derating Unit l.
The licensee has further stated that because it was conducting the 60-month battery discharge test for the first time, it inadvertently performed the test while in Condition 4 and did not foresee the impact of the Division I 24-volt dc battery loss on the restriction for mode changes.
The staff agrees with the licensee and finds that there exists an acceptable emergency basis for the proposed change to the Technical Specifications.
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
DETERMINATION The Comnission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)).
A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(I) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a.significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusions provided by the licensee in its September 14, 1987 submittal.
I.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows SSES Unit I to follow a currently prescribed action statement upon entering Operational Condition 5.
Inserting a control rod block by tripping one of the inoperable IRM channels is the prescribed action, and taking this action upon entry as opposed to having already been in
'I I
Operational Condition 5 does not effect the probability or consequences of any accident previously analyzed for the condition.
This logic has been endorsed by the.
NRC via Generic Letter 87-09.
II.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Operational Condition 5 is allowed to be entered with the required IRMs operable to perform their rod block function.
Since upon entry into Operational Condition 5, the rod block will be inserted via manually tripping the channel, no circumstances exist that could not have occurred previously, and therefore no condition will exist that would create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
III. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The answers expressed in I and II above indicate the insignificance of the role that the operational condition change plays in terms of safety for this case.
The margin of safety has not been significantly reduced by manually inserting a rod block upon entry into Operational Condition 5
as opposed to entering Operational Condition 5 with operable IRMs which could automatically provide the rod block.
In fact, the proposed condition is safer since the automatic function will not be relied upon.
Accordingly, the staff has concluded that the amendment involves a no significant hazards consideration.
The State of Pennsylvania was consulted on September 15, 1987, and had no comnents on the determination.
5.0 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 made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to this amendment.
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 nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
- 6. 0 CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) the amendment does not (a) significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (b) increase the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated or (c) significantly reduce a safety margin and, therefore, the amendment does not involve 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 Ceanission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and the security 'or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Mohan C. Thadani and Tom Dunning Dated:
septeaher 23> 1987
I Art 4