ML17157A123
| ML17157A123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A122 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004170063 | |
| Download: ML17157A123 (4) | |
Text
~8 REg(p ting
~o A
O lA Oy Ig
+~
~O
+y*~4 t
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDNENT NO. 96 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 from H. Keiser, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PPLC), to W.
Butler (NRC), dated June 22, 1989 PPLC proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 (SSES1).
The proposed changes slightly alter the current TS values or ranges of the operating limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR), and make editorial changes in three TS reflecting the fact that SSES1 now has only Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF) in the
- core, and no longer any General Electric (GE) fuel.
2.0 EVALOATION PPLC proposes to make two changes to the TS, involving Figures 3.2.3-1 and 3.2.3-2 of TS 3/4.2.3.
The first change increases from 1.42 to 1.43 the value of the operating limit NCPR for "End of Cycle-Recirculation Pump Trip Inoperable" (curve A in both figures).
This has been done because PPLC has recently determined that it had previously, at the time of the current cycle reload submittal and TS change, misinterpreted the results of the relevant licensing analysis.
The analysis was correct, and the correct interpretation leads to the increased NCPR value.
The proposed change is an appropriate correction to a more conservative value and is acceptable.
The second
- change, to Figure 3.2.3-1, expands the lower range of the flow dependent operating limit NCPR from 40 percent down to 30 percent of rated flow.
This is necessary because recent information, based on improved core flow calibration, shows that the two pump minimum speed line is at a lower flow than previously determined.
PPLC has had Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF) perform analyses to develop the limit line in this expanded range.
The analysis used previously approved
- methods, and the proposed expansion is acceptable.
There are also proposed editorial changes to TS 3.2.1, 3/4.2.4 removing short phrases referring to ANF fuel, and to TS 3.4.1.1.2.a removing Section 3 which indirectly refers to ANF fuel.
These changes are to remove unnecessary references (since there is no GE fuel in the core to require a distinction),
and to make these TS the same as those previously approved for Susquehanna 2.
There is a parallel change in the Bases for 3/4.4.1.
All of these editorial changes are acceptable.
QQ4 $ 7QQQN ppp3+7
~
L
'll
~- 9QQ4Q2 ggOCK pDC P
h
~i
~
~
4&
e'u~
Based on our review we have concluded that appropriate documentation was submitted and the TS changes satisfy staff positions and requirements in these
- areas, and are acceptable.
3.0 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 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 Federal Receister (54 FR 31113) on July 26, 1989 and consulted with the Comonw'eea et of Pennsylvania.
No public comments were received, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assur ance 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:
H. Riching Dated:
April 2, 1990
1 I
~ +t C
I t
I
$ 1 4