ML17157A131
| ML17157A131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A130 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004230575 | |
| Download: ML17157A131 (5) | |
Text
yah Rico 1p O~
Cy
~O
+**++
< UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR'REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
97 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-14 AND AMENDMENT NO.
65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POMER E( 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 2, 1989, Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-14 and NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would remove the provision of Specification 4.0.2 that limits the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval.
Guidance on this proposed change to TS was provided to. all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 89-14, dated August 21, 1989.
2.0 EVALUATION Specification 4.0.2 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval.
This extension provides f',exibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval.
Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or maintenance activities.
Specification 4.0.2 further limits the allowance for extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the specified time interval.
The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide an overall increase in the surveillance interval.
Experience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provi-sion to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle.
However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances.
Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the use of the 25<<
percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
PDp 90040004230~
P ADOCK OS000387 i
A e
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a
benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance.
This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist or when safety systems are out of service for ma',n-tenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases,
.he benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
Further-more, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 should be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect or. safety.
The guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-]4 includes the following change to this specification and re-moves the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
"4.0.2 Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
In addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change and noted that it is not the intent of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that specified.
The licensee has proposed changes to Specification 4.0.2 that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14, as noted above.
On the basis of its review of this matter, the staff finds that the proposed changes to the TS for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 are acceptable.
- 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 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 o
these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Re ister (55 FR 6113) on February 21, 1990 and consulted with the Commonwe~ath o
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 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:
T. Dunning Dated:
April 5, 1990
c J
J, I
4