ML19331E026
| ML19331E026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331E025 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009050219 | |
| Download: ML19331E026 (2) | |
Text
p *'*10 UNITED STATES
.,q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
<g l
'^
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
j
. {}
\\*****p5 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 71 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TTLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-278 Introduction By telecopied letter dated July 18, 1980 (formal application dated July 22, 1980), Philadelphia Electric Company (licensee) requested a temporary change to the Technical Specifications for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 3.
The temporary change would permit inoperability of a specific snubber located on one of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System lines for the period July 17-26, 1980 (10 days in lieu of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />).
The extension in time would pemit orderly repair of this snubber or verification of its design margin for assuring operability.
We conducted an expedited review of the licensee's request and on Saturday, July 19, 1980, issued oral authorization approving the change.
This evaluation accuments our determination.
Evaluation As a result of the licensee's investigations associated with IE Bulletin 79-14, " Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems", the licensee could not verify that snubber 10-GB-S-44 located on one of the RHR system lines was within design limits.
Therefore, on July 17, 1980, the licensee declared the snubber inoperable and initiated repair activities.
In order to provide sufficient time for repair or for verification of adequate design margin for assuring operability, the licensee requested a temporary change to permit continued operation for 10 days, limited to the case of this snubber l
only.
We have reviewed the licensee's request and detemined that a temporary change is acceptable as discussed below.
During the seven-day period of this temporary change, both RHR systems will be fully One RHR operable, with each RHR train supplied by a separate emergency power source.
system is fully qualified for seismic design; therefore, in the low likelihood event of a severe earthquake, this RHR system would be expected to remain fully operable.
The seismic design of the other RHR system has been reanalyzed. The reanalysis has shown that this RHR system would remain operable in the event of a Design Basis Earth-quake even with the failed snubber; however, the reanalysis did not assume a second 8 009050 2.{C
. Peach Bottom 3 4
snubber failure. Thus, both the opposite RHR system and a second snubber failure would be required before all RHR capability is lost.
Considering the low likelihood of a severe seismic event, combined with the failure of both RHR systems, and con-sidering that the snubber repair would be performed during a reactor shutdown which is scheduled at the end of the seven-day period for the tests required by IE Bulletin 80-17, it is concluded that extension of the period of the single snubber on the RHR system being out of service for seven days is acceptable.
Env1ronmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signifi-Having made this determination, we have further concluded cant environmental impact.
that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences 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 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: August 14, 1980 1
,