ML17157A241
| ML17157A241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A240 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007120130 | |
| Download: ML17157A241 (3) | |
Text
~
~ ~P,g REMI
~
(4
<p0 t
pO
+~*g4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY-EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQN SUPPORTING. AMENDMENT NO. -98.TO-FACILITY-OPERATING.LICENSE NQ. NPF-14 AND AMENDMENT NO.-66 TO FACILITY OPERATING-LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER 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 February 28, 1989, as revised October 2, 1989, Pennsylvania Power Il 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 change the Technical Specifications in Table 3.3.6.1-1, to correct an error in trip logic for the ATWS-RPT.
The licensee states that the Technical Specifications erroneously reflect the logic to be configured as one out of two per trip system, instead of two out of two.
2.0 EVALUATION In its letters the licensee points out that the trip logic for the ATWS-RPT was incorrectly assumed to be configured as one out of two per trip system and that footnote "a" to T.S. Table 3.3.4.1-1 was written to reflect that particular logic and could be interpreted to allow a channel of trip system 1 to be made inoperable for testing or maintenance for up to two hours provided the other channel in that trip system is operable.
When applied to the existing two out of two logic, this interpretation would immediately disable the one trip system and could allow the redundant trip system to be disabled also because no operability requirements are placed on it thus resulting in the potential complete loss of the ATWS-RPT.
The licensee states that the trip logic is two out of two and proposes to change the wording of footnote "a" to reflect the correct logic configuration.
The proposed revision of the footnote will require the redundant trip system to be operable during the time the first trip system is inoperable for surveillance or maintenance.
The second sentence of the footnote will ensure that the outage time does not exceed the original two hour limitation without entering the required action at the time it is determined that other than normal surveillance test procedures are needed to restore the system tc operable status.
Our review of FSAR Sections 7.6. la.8, 7.7. 1.3.3.2.
1 and FSAR Figure 7.7-7 (sheet
- 6) confirms that the trip logic is configured as two out of two per trip system and that each trip system will trip both recirculation pumps.
The staff also agrees that the proposed changes to the statement more accurately WOOrI.20l30
~0070::-I PDR ADOCK 05000387 I,
P PDC
reflect the existing ATWS-RPT logic and that the added sentence will ensure that the appropriate required action begins at the time it is determined that other than normal surveillance test procedures are needed to restore the channel to operable status.
During this effort, the staff reviewed the Bases for the limiting condition for operation (LCO) and found that it needed to be revised to reflect that an ATWS-RPT has been installed and to properly describe the ATWS-RPT trip and actuation logic.
Accordingly, the Bases should be revised to provide the appropriate support for this LCO.
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 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 CommonweaCth o
Ho 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.
Dated:
July 3, 1990 Princi al Contributor:
D. Lasher
rtt
~
T~
g P I