ML17156B324
| ML17156B324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B323 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909050348 | |
| Download: ML17156B324 (2) | |
Text
~
gP,S 4EgI
+4 po Cy I
0'e
/p
~O
~>>*<<+
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
DOCKET NO. 50-388 SUS UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
h By letter dated June 19, 1989, Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam-Electric Station, Unit 2.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications surveillance requirements of section 4.0.2.b for those surveillances for which performance is required prior to the beginning of the; Unit 2 third refueling and inspection outage.
The change is requested to permit a one-time relief from the specification 4.0.2.b requirement that the combined time for three consecutive intervals does'not exceed 3.25 times the specified surveillance interval.
The licensee has stated that the delay in completing the surveillances would not exceed sixty-six days duration projected for the third refueling and inspection outage.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The licensee states that it is faced with a surveillance scheduling problem for Unit 2 as a result of an extraordinarily long first operating cycle run.
Longer than usual first refueling cycle resulted in significantly longer surveillance intervals than the nominal 18 months allowed by the Technical Specifications.
Subsequent refueling cycles have not offset the impact of long first cycle.
The cumulative effect of longer than 18 month cycles has caused some of the third refueling outage surveillances to become due on September 5,
1989, approximately 4 days prior to the projected shutdown of Unit 2 for third refueling and inspection outage scheduled for September 9, 1989.
The licensee has confirmed that it will not exceed the provisions of specification 4.0.2.a which requires that each Surveillance cycle should not exceed 1.25 times the 18 months specified for an operating cycle.
The NRC Generic Letter 83-27 dated July 6, 1983 entitled "Surveillance Intervals in Standard Technical Specifications", indicates that the 18-month surveillance interval is based on reactor operating experience and the recognition of reactors utilizing 18-month fuel cycles.
The basis for the provision which allows any surveillance interval to be extended by 25% is to provide necessary operating flexibilitywhich may be required due to 890905034 zppp3SS 8 S9082~
pD PDOCK o+
poc p
I
~
w ~
~
2 operational considerations.
The Generic Letter also indicates that one-time changes may be granted for plant specific conditions when adequate justification is provided.
The staff has reviewed the licensees justification for extending the requirements of Technical Specification section 4.0.2.b for a combined surveillance interval for three consecutive surveillances limit of 58.5 months by about two months.
This represents less than 4X extension beyond the specification limit.
The licensee has provided an acceptable justification that its problem was caused by unusually longer than usual first cycle operation.
Additionally, since the licensee will continue to meet the provisions of specification 4.0.2.a, the reliability of the 'equipment surveyed is not expected to degrade as a result of one-time extension of combined three cycle surveillance interval limit by less than 4X.
The staff, concludes that the licensee's request meets the criteria in the Generic Letter 83-27 for a one-time change.
The staff finds the proposed Technical Specification changes acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL-CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to the survei llance requirements.
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 nor environmental assessment 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 Eederal Re ister (54 FR 31112) on July 26, 1989 and consulted with the State a~annoy van>a.
No pub'lic 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 C. Thadani oated:
August 28, 1989