ML17156B173
| ML17156B173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B171 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905300184 | |
| Download: ML17156B173 (2) | |
Text
~g RKoy "o
+
~
Cy I,
00 Ol 3
O~
w+n Op
+**4+
UNITEDSTATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISStO WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF"14 AND AMENDMENT NO.
55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
DOCKET NOS. 50-387 AND 50-388 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS I AND 2
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 12, 1988, Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 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 revise the Technical Specification 4.8.2.1.d.2.b related to load profiles of battery banks
- 1D610, 1D620,
- 1D630, 1D640, 2D610, 2D620, 2D630, and 2D640.
The licensee states that the changes are necessary to accoIIIIodate the transfer of control room instrumentation inverter loads from ac powered circuits to batteries and to recognize decreased loads associated with removal of emergency lighting loads from the batteries.
The changes will result in net reduction of the battery loads.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee states that the present design of the SSES control room instrumentation relies on ac power for reactor vessel level/pressure, suppression pool level/pressure, drywell temperature/pressure, residual heat removal discharge temperature, drywell/wetwell spray flowrate, condensate storage tank level, and containment instrument gas bottle pressure.
In the present configuration the station blackout at SSES would render the above instrumentation unavailable to the control room.
To reme this problem, the licensee is proposing to transfer the control room instrumentation inverter loads from ac powered circuits to battery banks
- 1D610, 1D620, 2D610, and 2D620.
In addition the licensee will remove the emergency lighting loads from battery banks
- 1D610, 1D620, 1D630, 1D640, 2D610, 2D620, 2D630, and 2D640.
The result of these changes will be a net reduction in the required connected loads for 125 v dc batteries below those specified in the Technical Specifications.
Since the proposed changes result in a net decrease in the required load profiles for the 125 v dc battery banks, the battery system will continue to meet all of safety requirements of its design basis including the requirements of IEEE 485 related to the availability of the margins for aging of the batteries.
The proposed changes to the load profiles for 125 v dc battery banks are therefore acceptable.
8905300184 890510 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
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.
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 (54 FR 13768) on April 5, 1989 and consulted with the State o~ennsy van a.
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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Mohan Thadani Dated:
May 10, 1989