ML17157B001
| ML17157B001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157B000 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201070299 | |
| Download: ML17157B001 (8) | |
Text
0.;
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
~+~<<"
" SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
115 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 AND AMENDMENT NO.
84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVF.
INC.
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-387 AND 50-388
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 27,
- 1988, as supplemented by letters dated November 9,
1988, January 9, 1989, July 5, 1989, February 22, 1990, March 20, 1991 and July 31, 1991, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PPSL) and the Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the licensees),
submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES),
Technical Specifications (TS). >,The November 9, 1988, and January 9,
1989 letters requested that information be treated as proprietary.
The information provided in the July 5, 1989 and March 20, 1991 letters related to the clarification of the information provided in the October 27, 1988 letter and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards determination.
The requested changes would change the surveillance test intervals and allowable outage times for the reactor protection system.
As part of the BWR Owners'roup Technical Specification Improvement Program, General Electric (GE) performed a reliability analysis to identify improvements to the reactor protection system (RPS) surveillance test intervals (STIs) and allowed outage time (AOTs) as provided in the topical report, NEDC-30851P.
NRC found that it provides an acceptable generic basis for supporting plant-specific technical specification (TS) changes related to the RPS.
As noted in the SER for the GE Topical Report (NEDC-30851P) dated May 27, 1987, GE determined that if the proposed RPS TS changes are implemented, there would be no significant increase of RPS failure frequencv for the reviewed BWR plants.
This determination is based on use of the GE procedure given in Appendix K of NEDC-30851P for evaluating specific plants against the generic RPS design and analysis.
The GE report does not confirm that calibration of the analog trip units can be extended from monthly to quarterly without creating excessive drift.
As a
result, the staff has given a list of plant-specific conditions that applicants for proposed TS changes for individual plants must:
(1)
Confirm the applicability of the generic analysis for NEDC-30851P to its plant.
920i070299 9ii230 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
PDR j
C
~ A I
~
~
~ I 5
'%r r
~
I >>
0 I II II II
~
,~
J I II
~ g
~
~
(2)
Demonstrate by use of current drift information provided by the equipment vendor or plant-specific data, that the drift characteristics for instrumentation used in the RPS channels in the plant are bounded by the assumption used in hEDC-30851P when functional test interval is extended
,- from monthly to quarterly.
(3)
Confirm that the differences between the parts of the RPS that perform the trip functions in the plant and those of the base case plant were included in the analysis using the procedures of Appendix K of NEDC-30851P, or provide plant-specific analyses to demonstrate that there is not appreciable change in RPS availability or public risk.
In accordance with the plant-specific conditions that each licensee must meet to make any proposed technical specification changes fully acceptable, proposes changes to the TS related to the RPS for the SSES Units 1 and 2 by letter dated October 27, 1988.
The information provided in the October 27, 1988 letter was clarified via subsequent letters dated November 9, 1988, January 9, 1989, July 5, 1989, February 22, 1990, and supported by RPS surveillance test results provided by letter and telecopy dated March 20, 1991 and July 31, 1991, respectively.
The information supplied by the supplemental letters did not affect the Commission's determination regarding no significant hazards consideration repcrted in the Federal
~Re ister (53 FR 50333) dated December 14, 1988.
2.0 EVALUATION The generic study in NEDC-30851P provides a technical basis to modify the surveillance test frequencies and allowable out-of-service time of the RPS from the generic TS.
The generic study also provides additional analyses of various known different RPS configurations to support the application of the generic basis on the plant-specific basis.
The generic basis and the supporting analyses were uti lized in the Susquehanna plant-specific evaluation.
The plant-specific evaluation of the RPS for SSES was provided to the staff and contained several major design differences along with the applicable justifications.
The staff reviewed these design differences and concluded that they did not effect the applicability of the generic TS improvements for SSES.
A plant-specific evaluation of modifying the surveillance test frequencies and allowable out-of-service time of the RPS from the TS of SSES has been performed by GE for PP8L.
The evaluation utilized the generic basis and the additional analyses documented in NEDC-30851P that was approved by NRC.
The results indicated that the RPS configuration for SSES is different when compared to the RPS configuration in the generic evaluation.
These differences do not affect plant safety due to the changes in the TS based on the generic analysis.
Therefore, the generic analysis in NEDC-30851P is applicable to SSES.
The staff SER of Hay 27, 1987, on GE Topical Reports NEDC-30844 and NEDC-30851P states the NRC's requirement for confirmation of instrument setpoint drift allowance.
Licensees should examine plant and/or generic data from representative instrument channels over a sufficient period to demonstrate that the setpoint drift expected with the extended STIs is within the margins established using their current methodology.
By letter to BWR Owners'roup from C. Rossi (NRC)
J t
f jt IW S 5}
l dated April 27, 1988, the NRC requests the licensees to confirm that the setpoint drift which could be expected under the extended STIs has been studied and either (1) has been shown to remain within the existing allowance in the PPS and ESFAS instrument setpoint calculation or (2) that the allowance and setpoint have been adjusted to account for the additional expected drift.
PPSL has recently completed a review of RPS surveillance test results.
-By letter and telecopy dated March 20, 1991 and July 31, 1991, respectively, the licensee provided the results of a review for several years of pertinent RPS surveillance test setpoint drift data for 4 of the 12 RPS functions.
The licensee demonstrated that setpoint drift for the instrumentation associated with the 3 of the 4 functions remained within the existing allowance in the RPS instrument setpoint calculation when considered over an extended period of time.
For the fourth function, Reactor Vessel Water Level - Low Level 3, an anomaly was found.
The licensee proposed to change the channel calibration frequency for the RPS Level 3 switches from an 18-month frequency (i.e., "R") to quarterly frequency (i.e., "g").
The quarterly channel functional test is to be deleted for this channel since the channel calibration by definition must include the channel functional test.
Based on the discovery of the need for these changes to the original proposal, the licensee has voluntarily gone back and determined that no other RPS instruments need to be tested on a more frequent basis than required by the Technical Specifications for other than short-term trouble shooting purposes.
The licensee concluded that the RPS Level 3 problem was an isolated problem that is correct by this proposal.
~Sumaa r Based on our evaluation of the setpoint drift analysis we find that the licensee has provided acceptable iustification to extend the channel functional surveillance intervals as proposed from monthly to quarterly except for RPS Level 3 channel.
Also, the proposed change to the channel calibration interval of the RPS Level 3 from 18 months to a quarterly interval is acceptable.
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 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
V 1
0 I
J 1
I l
P
,)
p r I
>r
~
I' I
e e
~
I t
)
\\
II C
I H
'I
)
lt I
j i
P
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 (53 FR 50333).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for cateqorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to ]0 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 will not be endanoered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will 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:
SRhow JRaleigh Date:
December 30, 1991
v
'V
't i