ML17157A722
| ML17157A722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A721 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9106210132 | |
| Download: ML17157A722 (5) | |
Text
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 SAFETY EVALllATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIOH RELATED 0
AMENDMENT N0.109TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HO.
NPF-14 AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
HPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POl!ER &'LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTPIC COOPERATIVE It<C.
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UtlITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET HOS.
50-387 AND 388
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 18, 1991, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the licensees) submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise technical specification 4.1.4.1 such that while in Operational Condition 1 when reducing Thermal Power the selection error for an out-of-sequence control rod is demons+rated within one hour after reaching the low power setpoint (LPSP).
Other changes included in the amendments are editorial in nature to provide a
clear format and to clarify that "RWM automatic initiation" is defined to be
+hat point in time when the LPSP Liow power setpointj is reached.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Descri tion of Chan e
PP&L is proposing to revise the TS Surveillance Requirements 4.1.4.1 such that while in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1, when reducing THERMAL POWER, the selection error for out-of-sequence control rod is demonstrated within one hour after reaching the low power setpoint (LPSP),
(20% rated thermal power).
PP&L also proposes changes that are basically editorial in nature to provide a clear format and to clarify that the "RWM automatic initiation" is defined to be that point in time when the LPSP is reached.
2.2 Justification in su ort of chan es to TS Surveillance Re uirement
.1.4.1 Current plant operating procedures require demonstration of RWM operability once THERt".AL POWER is reduced below the LPSP, "Plant Shutdown to Minimum Power."
The licensee believes the RWM system wi 11 be confirmed operable once conditions are reached where the surveillance testing can be performed.
PP&L also points out that the proposed changes do not physically modify the RWM system design nor its function as described in the FSAR.
9106210132 910606 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
"1 The proposed changes do not impact any accident analyses as described in the FSAR.
If the RWM failed or were inoperable, the Reactor Protection
- System, (RPS),
and the Rod Sequence Control System, (RSCS),
are available to mitigate
.the consequences of a Control Rod Drop Accident.
The RWM enforces those procedural requirements, such as Rod insert/withdrawal sequences as determined by Reactor Engineering to minimize rod worth and reactivity insertion rates.
The licensee showed that the proposed changes do not modify the method or requirements of those procedures.
Finally, the RWM system is not required for safe shutdown of the plant as described in. the FSAR..It need not function during a loss of Offsite Power Event.
The RSCS is redundant to the RWM and is fully operable once the LPSP is reached.
Demonstrating RWM operability within one hour after, versus prior to, system initiation will not adversely affect the safe operation of SSES nor contribute to an event not analyzed in the FSAR.
The changes proposed by PPSL to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements 4.1.4'.1 are acceptable.
The NRC staff has reviewed the reports submitted by the Licensee in regard to Technical Specification changes pertaining to RWM Surveillance Requirements 4.1.4.1.
Hased on this review, we have concluded that the requested TS changes satisfy positions and requirements in these areas.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
)
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public wi 11 not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities wi 11 be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
A. Attard J. Raleigh Date:
June 6, 1991