ML17157B817
| ML17157B817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157B816 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206030175 | |
| Download: ML17157B817 (5) | |
Text
~g AEOII UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-14 AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
SUS UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1
AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-387 AND 388
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 12, 1992 and supplemented by letter. dated April 27,
- 1992, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the licensees) submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would make changes to Technical Specification 3.8.4. 1 (Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices) to delete reference to fuses in the Limiting Condition for Operation, to delete requirements related to fuse testing in Action a, to delete requirements a.2.a and a.2.b from Surveillance Requirements, and to delete reference to primary containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective fuses in the Technical Specification Bases for surveillance requirements.
The April 27, 1992, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The Technical Specification requires that at least once per 18 months fuses used as containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices be either functionally tested or replaced.-
In the event of failure of a fuse to trip the circuit, the upstream protective device is expected to operate and isolate the faulty circuit.
In the worst case fault condition, a single division of protective functions can be lost.
However, this scenario is covered under a single failure criterion.
In addition to the.above, based on an NRC memorandum from R. Bernero to H. Thompson dated July 19, 1985, the requirement for periodic non-destructive resistance measurement testing to demonstrate that fuses satisfy their manufacturer's design criteria and the need for periodic fuse replacement are technically ineffective and unnecessary for the following three reasons:
1) 920b030i75 920521'DR ADOCK 05000387, P
P
periodic field measurement of fuse resistance does not provide any meaningful assurance on the fault interrupting capability of a fuse,
- 2) periodic removal of a fuse from its holder for test purposes merely compromises its integrity, and
- 3) operational experience does not indicate that a current limiting fuse ever becomes less protective over its life.
Furthermore, the staff has determined that fuse control at SSES is adequately addressed by the licensee's procedures (Nuclear Department Procedure NDAP-gA-0323).
Fuses may only be removed/replaced when authorized by shift supervision, work authorization, permit or approved procedure.
As part of the planning proce'ss for removal and replacement of 480 V and lower fuses, fuse data is verified against the fuse and its intended application
[panel
- number, component type, master parts 1'ist number, equipment
- name, confirming location and position, and reference drawings(s)].
Prior to fuse removal, the fuse is tagged listing information such as permit number, permit tag number, fuse number and location.
The information listed on the tag(s) provides the controls necessary to ensure the fuse is reinstalled in proper location.
Pursuant to the above, the proposed change does not adversely affect the safe operation of Susquehanna SES and will enhance fuse reliability.
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 and changes the surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve nosignificant 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 (57 FR 11113).
Accordingly, the amendments meet 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'bove, that:
(I) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered 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 Contributor:
James J.
Raleigh Date:
May 21, 1992
4 Ir t
C F
P