ML17158A526
| ML17158A526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17158A523 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9411020076 | |
| Download: ML17158A526 (2) | |
Text
~P,S Ae0I, Pp
~O
+a**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAF VALUATION BY THE OFFIC OF NUCLEAR REACTOR R
GU TIO
'ELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.135TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 AMENDMENT N0.105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-22 1
PENNSYLVANIA POW R
& 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 May 31,
- 1994, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric
- Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would change the TS surveillance requirement for monitoring the ground water level for the site spray pond from once per month to once per 6 months for each unit.
2.0 EVALUATION TS 4.7.1.3.c currently requires monthly monitoring of the spray pond ground-water level at six observation well locations.
The TS dictate that the spray pond must be declared inoperable if the measured ground water level exceeds the value listed in Surveillance Requirement 4.7. 1.3.c.
PP&L has proposed to increase the minimum surveillance frequency as stated above.
The spray pond serves as the ultimate evaporation and air heat sink for the emergency service water and the residual heat removal service water systems for both SSES units and therefore needs to be operable to provide a heat removal function after an accident.
GE indicated in its safety evaluation that the elevation of the spray pond liner is 668 feet above sea level (ASL) and the elevation of the spray header trench is 663.25 feet ASL.
The TS indicates that a level of 663 feet ASL is an acceptance level for the ground water level and that if this level is exceeded, then the spray pond is to be determined inoperable.
If the ground water level would exceed this level, then this could cause structural failure of the liner of the spray pond.
Such a failure could occur resulting from the effects of a seismic event in combination with the effect of liquefaction, or even from the forces of buoyancy being applied to the spray pond liner by the presence of the ground water.
q411020076 941020
- 'I PDR ADOCK 05000387 i
P PDR
According to PP&L's submittal, it has monitored the ground water level monthly at the six observation well locations over the past 12 years.
The data reflects that fact that the water level has remained at least 10 feet below the TS limit at each reading.
The staff reviewed a summary of the recorded level and verified the margin that has remained between the actual level and the limit even during the months where the water level has been historically the highest.
'he staff has reviewed the submittal and evaluation provided by PPIIL, and agrees that there is sufficient historical data to indicate that the maximum expected ground water level at the location of the six observation well locations at the site in Berwick, Pennsylvania, is not expected to reach the TS level of 663 feet ASL.
This is based on the stability, predictability and margin of difference of the observed and the maximum allowable level.
Consequently, the staff has determined that it would be acceptable to reduce the frequency of level observation from the current monthly requirement to once every 6 months with no effect on the margin of safety.
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 ( 59 FR 34668).
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
- 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, (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:
C. Poslusny pate October 20, 1994