ML17156B184
| ML17156B184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B182 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906050343 | |
| Download: ML17156B184 (3) | |
Text
~G
~gR AfQy C
0p4 I
~)
00g Vl0vk Cy
~O
+**>>"
UNITED STATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING At1ENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE t(0.
NPF-14 PENNSYLVANIA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
DOCKET NO. 50-387 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UttIT 1 1.0 2.0
3.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 24, 1989, Pennsylvania
-Power 8 Light Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-14 for the Susquehanna Steam E'1ectric Station (SSES),
Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications in support of the proposed modification which eliminates the Steam Condensing Mode of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System operation.
Similar changes were approved for SSES Unit 2 operation in Amendment No. 49, dated May 24, 1988.
EVALUATION The licensee states that the steam condensing mode of the RHR system operation is not a safety related function.
The steam condensing mode will be eliminated by converting the valves, F011 A/B, to locked closed manual valves by removing the electrical connections,
- controls, and position indicating lights.
The computer points for the position wi 11 be deleted.
These changes are acceptable because the steam condensing mode of the RHR is not an essential mode (unlike LPCI, containment cooling, and shutdown cooling modes).
- Moreover, SSES, Unit 1 does not use the steam condensing mode of operation of RHR for mitigation of transients and accidents.
For these
- reasons, the staff concludes that the licensee's proposal to suspend the steam condensing mode of the RHR operation and the associated changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable.
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 8906050343 S90522 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
PDC 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 nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4eo CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Re ister (54 FR 15834) on April 19, 1989 and consulted with the State ~oPennsy vanra.
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 amendment 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 22, 1989
o
~
4
't
'I