ML19321A825
| ML19321A825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A820 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007240249 | |
| Download: ML19321A825 (3) | |
Text
( 7 [ f rec oq
- g UNITED STATES Q
i g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
-l WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 l
\\,*..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTINC AtiENDi'.ENTS NOS, 71 AND 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-44 AND DPR-56_
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY j
DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 l
I.
Introduction By letter dated May 20, 1980, Philadelphia Electric Company (licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-44 and 56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3.
The proposed amendments involve:
(1) clarification of the definition Operable, (2) addition of general Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) and (3) addition of action statements for certain specifications.
The licensee's application is in response to the NRC staff's request dated April 10, 1980.
II. Laluation 1.
Definition - Operable The NRC staff requested the licensee to revise the definition of Operable to implicitly state that a system is capable of performing its specified function when all necessary instrumentation, controls, normal and emergency electrical power sources, cooling or seal water, lubrication or other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system to perform its function are also capable of performing their related' support function.
We have reviewed the licensee's submittal and determined that this requested change is consistent with our request and is therefore acceptable.
2.
General LCOs LCOs are specified for each safety related system in the plant, and with few excep-tions, the ACTION statements address single outages of components, trains or sub-systems.
For any particular system, the LC0 does not address multiple outages of redundant components, nor does it address the effects of outages of any support system - such as electrical power or cooling water. This is because of the large number of combinations of these types of outages that are possible. Therefore, the NRC staff's April 10, 1980 letter requested the licensee to incorporate genera' LCOs to assure that no set of equipment outages would be allowed to persist that wou',d 8007240)N-
--.-.--...:-.=.:-
PBAPS 2 & 3 I result ir, the facility being in an unprotected condition. One of the general LCOs specifies the action to be taken for circumstances in excess of those addressed in a specific system specification. The second general LC0 addresses the situation for which a system would be declared inoperable solely because its normal or emergency power source is inoperable. Sample specifications were pro-vided in the NRC staff's request. We have reviewed the licensee's proposed addition of general LCOs and determined that they are consistent with the guidance furnished. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
3.
Additional Action Statements The licensee's request also included the addition of ac. tion statements for those currently approved specifications that do not specifically address outages of com-ponents or systems. The licensee's request was based on the Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors, NUREG-0123, Rev.1.
The action statements involve the (a) reactor protection system (RPS) response time, (b) reactor coolant chemistry, (c) secondary containment integrity and (d) instrumentation for monitoring river water level.
We have reviewed the licensee's request and determined that the proposed additions for items (b) and (c) above are totally consistent with our standard specifications and are acceptable.
For item (a) the licensee proposed an action statement that would permit continued operability for RPS response times in excess of 100 msec provided that a safety evaluation approved by both the on-site and off-site review comittee, indicated that safety limits (specified elsewhere in the Technical Specifications) would not be exceeded.
During our review we discussed this aspect with the licensee and indicated that operation with response times in excess of 100 msec would require preapproval by the NRC staff. He agreed to a modified action statement.
Therefore, we have determined that this change as modified by the NRC staff is consistent with our requirements and is acceptable.
For item (d) we have reviewed the licensee's submittal and detemined that the requested change is unique to the Peach Bottom Technical Specifications. Current requirements for LCOs and surveillance associated with intake structures specify minimum river levels (as a source for service water systems) and maximum levels (for flood protection). Surveillance requirements do not require active monitors of river level. We have determined that our present requirements are included in the Peach Bottom specifications which are unaffected by the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed action statement for inoperable instrumentation is acceptable.
The only other change authorized by the amendments supported by this evaluation is a deletion of obsolete notes regarding inerting makeup system requirements prior to the first Peach Bottom refueling outage. This deletion is pro forma in nature and is acceptable.
III.
Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendments do not authorize 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
PBAPS 2 & 3 further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standcoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFP,151.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statenent, or negative declaration and environ-mental. impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these' amendments.
IV. ' Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, th' t:
(1) a because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a signi-ficant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable 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 conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these anendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: July 15,1980 l
l I
r
'