ML17156B150
| ML17156B150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B149 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905190370 | |
| Download: ML17156B150 (2) | |
Text
~P,g AECI 0
OO Op V/
+~
gO Wy*y4 F
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 AND AMENDMENT NO.
54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER 8I LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
DOCKET NOS. 50-387 AND 50-388 SUS UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1
AND 2
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 14, 1988, Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company (licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-14 and NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),
Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would delete the requirements of Technical Specification 4.7.2.d,2 related to the Control Room Emergency Outside Air Supply System (CREOASS)
The licensee states that the surveillance requirements for CREOASS OPERABILITY under outside air intake radiation signal and Reactor Building isolation signal are performed under Technical Specification 4.7.2.d.3, and incorporation of these two signals in Technical Specification 4.7.2.d.2 appears to be in error.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee states that the SSES Units 1 and 2 surveillance Technical Specification 4.7.2.d.2 is intended to verify the OPERABILITY of CREOASS in the isolation mode to protect Control Room operators against accidental chlorine releases in accordance with the staff guidance in the regulatory guide 1.95 on "Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an Accidental Chlorine Release."
The Technical Specification 4.7.2.d.3 is intended to verify operation of CREOASS in the pressurized mode upon detection of outside air high radiation signal or Reactor Building isolation signal.
At present,
- both, the SSES Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications 4.7.2.d.2 and 4.7.2.d.3 incorporate surveillance for outside air radiation signal and Reactor Building isolation signal.
Since CREOASS operates in the isolation mode only for protection against chlorine, the licensee has properly concluded that the surveillance of CREOASS OPERABILITY in the isolation mode upon radiation signal and Reactor Building isolation signal under Technical Specification, 4.7.2.d.2 is in error and should be del'eted.
The staff agrees with the licensees evaluation, and finds the proposed changes (which are consistent with the Technical Specifications of other similar plants such as Limer ick Generating Station) acceptable.
S905i90370 S90505 PDR ADOCK 05000387 PDC
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes 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 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which'was published in the Federal Re ister (53 FR 50333) on 0ecemhen la, 1988 and consulted with the Sta tte o 'Pennsy vania.
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:
(I) 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 wi 11 be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Mohan C. Thadani Dated:
May 5, 1989