ML20012E979
| ML20012E979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012E978 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004090220 | |
| Download: ML20012E979 (2) | |
Text
h
- g. m c.
- f '.\\' q UNITf D sTATis
>w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
$1 W AIMINGTON, o 0.80146
)
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY TPE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 153 AND 154 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR 56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC 5Envict EttcTRIC AND GK5 COMPANY DELI 9FVA POWLR AND LIGMT cumrANT "lT[E TIC CITY ELECTRIC c m ANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC PNER STATION UNIT N05. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50 277 AND 50 ?78
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ty letter dated July 12, 1989 PhiladelphiaElectricCompany(thelitersee) reorested an anendment to FtcIlity Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR 56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Un The amendmentswouldchangeTechnicalSpecificatIon(itNos.2and3.TS) Table 4.2.F." Minim Test and Calibration Frequency for Surveillance Instrumentation,' to decreese the required calibration frequency for reactor water level (narrow range) and reactor pressure instrumentation. At present. Table 4.2.F requires that the instrumentation be calibrated once per six months.
The revised TS Table 4.2.F would require calibration once per operating cycle.
P0 EVALUATION The proposed changes reduce the required calibration frequency to once per operating cycle. This is desirable because it permits calibration to be performed during scheduled refueling outages and mid-cycle outages.
Approval of the proposed changes will allow the licensee greater flexibility in scheduling the required surveillances to avoid calibrating the associated level and pressure transmitters during reactor operation.
The licensee stated that the valving operations necessary to return these transmitters to service following calibration could perturb other safety-related instruments which share cormon sensino lines and consequently could cause a reactor scram and primary contalnment isolation.
In addition, the licensee has reviewed historical calibration records and found that the associated instrunentation erperienced minor drif t and were typically found to be within tolerance when tested.
The reactor water level (narrow range) and reactor pressure surveillance instrumentation listed in TS Table 4.2.F are part of the feedwater Control System and the accident monitoring system to neet NUREG 0737 requirements. The 6nstrumentation that is associated with the feedwater Control System is not safety related and does not initiate any engineered 9o04o90220 900327 DR ApoCK 0500 7
i
{
v.
[
I 2
[
l L
t safety features, including the reactor protection system.
Instrumentation j
associated with NUREG 0737 accident monitoring systems typically have a i
specified calibration frequency of once per 18 months as recomended in i
NRC Generic Letter 83 36 and as roted in $tandard Technical Specifications, The staff notes that an operating cycle calibration interval at Peach Bottom is limited to 18 months, as statto in the TS definition for j
' Surveillance frequency." Reactor water level and reactor pressure j
instrumentation that initiate safety related actuations, such as reactor scram primary containment isolation, and ECCS actuation, are covered by technIcalspecificationsrequirementsotherthanTable4.2.F.
I The licensee has proposed changes to TS Table 4.2.F that are consistent l
with STS guidelines and has reviewed calibration records to support a reduced calibration frequency, as noted above. On the basis of its t
review, the staff finds that the proposed changes to the TS for Petch l
Botton Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIROWENTAL CON $10 ERAT 10NS These ariendments invnive a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component incated within the restricted
{
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no i
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 l
radiation exposure. The Commissien has previously issued a proposed i
finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration j
ar.d there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the elig(ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set l
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c) 9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impect statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve i
no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register ($4FR30296)onJuly 19,1989, and consulted with the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania. No public coments were received and the l
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thet:
l (1) there is reasoneble assurance that the health and safety of the e
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and
- 12) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comissior's i
reguletions, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
G. Y. Suh Dated: March 27. 1990 I
._ _ ___ - _ j