ML20043C068
| ML20043C068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043C064 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006010267 | |
| Download: ML20043C068 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
- ?il.ib
! e seg S 'q - UNITED STATES E E'- e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -{ i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 %*.../ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFF.1CE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING-s j-AMENDMENT NO. nr, 'TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NO. DPR-56: FPILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY' PF8LI N FVICE ELE _CTRIC AND GA5 COMPANYc i y DELMARVA.PCWER AND LIGHT COMPANY-ATL A,NTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY 4 PEACH EOTTOM AiuMIC POWER STATION,: UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 12, 1990, as supplemented on May 18, 1990, Philadelphia Electric Company requested'an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit No. 3. The licensee's May 18, 1990 letter provided clarifying 'information related to the license?'s l: safety evaluation transmitted in its original Apri 12, 1990 submittal. Thestaffhasdeterminedthatthesupplementalinfo(rmation:doesnotaffect the proposed determination thatL the amendrnent. involves no significant hazards consideration. This' amendment would allow a one-time extension 3 of'about seven months for the performance of required visual inspections of inaccessible snubbers.- As-a result'of previous snutber inspections, Unit 3 is currently required by TS 4.11.D.2 to visually inspect inaccessible-l snubbers 6t an-interval'of six months 25%. The licenseeiis proposing: l that the next inspection due May 26, 1990 be postponed until the scheduled mid-cycle outage in the fourth quarter of 1990. The subject. snubbers are inaccessible during reactor power operation and in the absence of the proposed TS-change, plant shutdown would be required to' perform the visual inspections. 2.0 EVALUATION 1 Technical Specification 4.11.D.2 requires that snubbers on safety =related i components and piping be visually intpected at various intervals depend-~ l ing upon the snubber f6ilures identified by the previors inspection. An-increase in the number of failures would decrease the inspectioncinterval. During a visual inspection in January 1987, three-snubbers out of a total population of 150 inaccessible snubbers were found:with uncovered hydraulic fluid ports, indicating loss of fluid. This war ?ttributed to seal' failure and the snubbers were replaced with similar rebuilt snubbers. Based on three failures, TS 4.11.D.2 roquired the inspection interval to be reduced from the previous 18 months:1.25% to four months r. 25%. A' f subsequent inaccessible snubber visual inspectioniallowed the inspection interval to be lengthened to six months < 25%. During the period of eaank v l t[ ]
I ia g
- y.,,
1 . j 1 Merch 31, 1987 to November 1989, Unit 3 did not operate. Most recently, prior to startup of Unit 3, 80% of the inaccessible snubbers were functionally tested during the period from Pay 1988 to October 1989 and verified operable and 100% of the inaccessible snubbers were visually j inspected in October 1989 and confirmed to be free of discrepancies that-could affect operability. 'These measures were in excess of.TS requirements, U and were undertaken to provide greater assurance that Unit 3 was starting. j up with an operable snubber population. However, the six month
- 25%
inspection interval was not increased due to the unit being shutdown since i the last visual inspection. :Therefore, the next visual inspection is due six months i 25% from the previous, inspection or no laterlthan May-26,. 1990. l Although'the proposed'one-time extension of the visual'intpection interval-may result in a slight increase in the prcbability of a malfunction of the snubbers, the reduction in safety margin to components and piping runs-is insignificant. This assessment:is based on the' fact that the~malfunc-tions, if they occur,' are likely to be randomly di:;tributed ar.d in general, 4, the. malfunction of a few snubbers in a'large piping run is not likely to render the system inoperable. ~All piping runs and components whose structural integrity could be jeopardized by the failure of only a;small number of snubbers have been evaluated individNally. The-High-Pressure Coolant injection (HPCI) system and the recirculation pumps fall'in:this? category. - All the snubbers on the -HPCI ' system and.the two recircu7ation, pumps were included among the inaccessible. snubbers which were functionally tested and verified operable prior to startup of. Unit 3. This provides assurance that the overall increase in the prcbability of a malfunction or y reduction in safety margin will not be significant.- 1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves a change to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves =no significant increase. in the amounts, and no significant change in tho types, of any effluents 1 that may be released offsite and-that there is no_significant ir, crease in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure..The Comission. has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves to significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria I I for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). -Pursuant to-10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared'in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 17328) on April 24,.1990 and consulted with the Cosnonwealth of Pennsylvania. No public cements were received e.nd the Commonwalth of Pennsylvania did not have any coments. a l ?
? ._O 3'- The staff has concluded, based on.the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable' assurance that tbe health and safety of the i p(ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,.and
- 2) such activities will be conducted in compliance-with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be-inirical to the common defensa and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 25,1990 a Principal Contributor:
- 1 J. Rajan i
1 I i I i - i I, / l- }}