ML19250B812
| ML19250B812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250B810 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911050265 | |
| Download: ML19250B812 (2) | |
Text
,(pa arco,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o g{
p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.62 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-44 PHILADELPHIAELECTRICCOMPA0Y PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA F0WER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-277 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 2,1979, Philadelphia Electric Company requested a temporary change to the Technical Specifications for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Statica Unit No. 2.
The proposed change would permit continued opera-tion of Peach Bottom 2 without performing a pump flow rate capacity test on the A/C subsystem of the Core Spray System, until January 3,1980.
EVALUATION The Core Spray System is an Emergency Core Cooling System.
It consists of two independent subsystems each comprised of two 50". capacity pumps and associated valves and piping capable of taking suction from the suppression pool and transferring water to a spray sparger in the reactor vessel. This system is a low pressure system and is isolated from the primary coolant system during power operation. Thus, each subsystem is provided with a test return line so that pump capacity flow rate tests can be performed on a periodic basis by circulating water from the suppression pool back to the suppression pool. The licensee's request stated that the ability to perform the pump capacity test on one of the two independent systems was inhibited in July 1979 by perfoming temporary modifications to the test return line because one of the valves in this line failed to close. The blockage of the test return line did not effect the ability of the subsystem to inject water into the reactor vessel since the test return line is not in the safety injection flow path.
' The licensee requested that continued operation of Peach Bottom 2 be permitted without the conduct of the A/C subsystem pump capacity test until January 3, 1980 in order to minimize shutdowns of Unit 2 and to permit repairs to the A/C test return line to be delayed and affected during a currently scheduled outage for other purposes.
We have reviewed the licensee's request and determined that the requested temporary change is acceptable on the following basis. The purpose of sur-veillance on the Core Spray System is tc provide assuranca that the system 1771 088 791105 0 2 b
. will be capable of providing emergency cooling water to the core should it be required. The surveillance includes a number of rcriodic tests which include:
monthly pump operability tests, monthly valve opeNoility tests, daily checks and quarterly calibration of instrumentation, and quarterly pump capacity tests. The purpose of the flo*w rate test ;s to monitor pump performance to detect any long term degradation of system performance. The licensee's history of core spray pump performance has shown essentially no reduction in capacity since early 1973, a period of over 6 years.
By performing monthly pump and valve operability tests, we will have assurance that the core spray system is capable of injecting water into the reactor vessel. The performance history of satisfactory flow characteristics supports our conclusion that adequate flow will be provided. Therefore, a temporary change which extends for a period of 3 months the requirement for a flow rate test for one of the two independent systems has no safety significance.
Accordingly, the licensee's proposed temporary change is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATI0fis We have determined that the amendment does not involve a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section Sl.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connec-tion with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSIONS We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable reason-able assurance that the health and safety (of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and 3) such activities will be, nducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of w amendment will not be inimical to the ccmmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 19, 1979
\\(( \\