ML20043H876
| ML20043H876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H875 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006270006 | |
| Download: ML20043H876 (4) | |
Text
.
Y %o
' UNITED STATES 7
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
wAssiNoTON, D. C. 20656 1
%e.,s*/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPp0RTING AMENDMENT.NO. 40 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-39 PHILADELPHIA. ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK, GENERATING STATION. UNIT 1 l
DOCKET NO. 50-352 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 20, 1990, Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-39 I
for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would
~;
p make several administrative changes to the Technical Specifications L
(TSs) for Limerick, Unit I to eliminate differences between the Unit I and Unit 2 TSs.
l 2.0 DISCUSSION On August 25, 1989, the NRC issued a full power license for Limerick, Unit 2alongwithanewsetofTSs(NUREG1376). During the development of the Unit 2 TSs, the general objective was to keep the L
Unit 2 TSs identical to the Unit 1 TSs since the same persons operate.
L both units. There is one common control room for both units. The t,perators are licensed for both units and the operators rotete between l
the two units. While a few differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 TSs were necessary because of differences in design, the differences N-were kept to a minimum. However, there were a few changes to the existing Unit 1 TSs proposed by the NRC staff for the Unit 2 TSs which the applicant accepted. Also, typographical or sditorial inconsistences-were corrected. As an example of the.latter, the words "0PERATIONAL CONDITION" should be all capitals in the TSS.
The-proposed changes to the TSs in this application are to correct the i
typographical and editorial inconsistencies in the Unit 1 TSS which.
l were noted during development of the Unit 2 TSs and to incorporate the l
revisions which the staff suggested (and the licensee accepted) for
[
the Unit 2 TSs.
st l-The licensee classified the proposed changes to the TSs into seven (7) types or groups. A complete listing of each proposed change according to this grouping was provided in ATTACHMENT 2 of the licensee's submittal. A general description of the type of changes in each group is as follows:
l L
9006270006 900530 PDR ADOCK 05000352 P
PDC s-
....2.-
-w~-
- ~,..
,- ~
~
c 1
c.
l 2
i t
1.
Revise Note
- in Table 3.3.2-1 Table 4.3.2.1 1 and Section 5
3.6.5.2.2 of the TS in accordance with the changes previously made to Note
- in TS Sections 3.6.5.1.2 and 3.6.5.3 by Unit'l TS Amendment 29. These changes clarified the definition of OPERATIONAL CONDITION
- but the changes were not implemented in every TS which references OPERATIONAL CONDITION *. This is an administrative change to achieve consistency throughout the Unit 1 TS and to eliminate differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS.
2.
Revise TS Section 4.3.7.2.2 by incorporating the changes incorporated by NRC in the original Unit 2 TS. This change is an administrative change to clarify the fact that some seismic instruments are not accessible during power operation and to i
clarify when these instruments are required to be restored to i
L OPERABLE status following an actuation.
3.
Delete the statements / note from TS Sections 4.6.5.3.g and 4.7.2e.3 i
and TS Bases 3/4.6.5 which refer to " initial criticality of Unit 2" and "the issuance of the Unit 2 full power operating license."
These events have already occurred and therefore the statements /
note no longer apply and can be administrative 1y removed.
4 Add ". COMMON SYSTEM" to the TS Section 3/4.6.5.3 title for Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) and to the TS Section'3/4.7.2 title i
for Control Room Emergency Fresh Air Supply System (CREFAS).
The.same editorial change to the title for the Unit 1-Residual Heat Removal Service Water System (RHRSW) and the Emergency L
Service Water' System (ESW) was made by Amendment 27 to clearly L
alert the operators that there is an interdependency between units. This same interdependency exists for SGTS and.CREFAS and the proposed change will. achieve consistency throughout the Unit 1 TS. The appropriate changes to the corresponding TS Index pages L
nnd Bases pages will also be made. This change was incorporated by the NRC throughout the original Unit 2 TSs for the SGTS, CREFAS, RHRSW and ESW.
5.
Revise the ACTION statements for the diesel generators in TS Section 3.9.1.1 to incorporate the more restrictive ACTION requirements which were administratively required by PORC Position 45 as comitted to in PEco's June 14, 1989 letter to the NRC and incorporated in the original Unit 2 TS.
!~
N-6.
Add a statement to TS Bases 3/4.4.3.2 concerning the ACTION requirements for pressure isolation valves. This is an administrative change to the TS Bases which was requested by the V
NRC during the development of the Unit 2 TS in order to clarify the existing bases. This change will eliminate differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS.
7.
Add an asterisk to the title of TS Section 6.9.1.6, " Monthly Operating Reports," to indicate that a single submittal of the report is made for both units. This is an administrative change to achieve consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS.
b h
.~,
- .., c
, 3.0 EVALUATION The changes in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 7 are editorial or administrative and have no safety significances. These changes are acceptable.
2 The changes in Group 4 to add the words "Comon System" in the heading for the systems that are shared by both Units was proposed by the NRC staff during development of the Unit 2.TSs.
If one of these comon systems becomes inoperable, it could affect both units. The purpose ofthestaff'sproposededitorialaddition(whichthelicenseeaccepted) was to clearly alert the operators that there is an interdependency between units. These proposed editorial changes to the Unit 1 TSs to make them the same as the approved Unit 2 TSs are acceptable.
The change in group 6 is to add a sentence to Bases 3/4.4.3.2 (page B 3/4 4-3) to clarify the ACTION requirements for pressure isolation values. The change was proposed by the NRC staff for the Unit 2 TS$
and is acceptable.
The only significant changes to the TSs are those in Group 5.
- Limerick, l
Units 1 and 2, have eight (P) emergency diesel generators, with 4 assigned to each unit. Both Units 1 and 2 have four electrical divisions. The emergency power supply for each of these divisions l
consists of one diesel generator set complete with all necessary l
auxiliary systems. Each diesel generator is connected to only one l
4.16-KV class IE bus. Each diesel generator set is operated l
independently and is normally disconnected from the offsite power l
system, except during testing. Each diesel generttor is automatically started by either a LOCA signal or by an emergency bus undervoltage signal from its respective bus and is capable of attaining rated voltage and frequency within 10 seconds after. receiving a starting signal.
In the event of a LOCA, the electrical loada are eutomatically connected to their respective diesel gtnerator, after rated voltage and frequency are attained by the diestl generators, with the loads being connected in a predetermined sequenco over an approximate three minute period.
When Unit I was licensed, the comon systems which later would be
- shared by Unit 2 (e.g., Standby Gas Treatment System, Residual Heat Removal Service Water System, Emergency Service Water System, etc.)
were inplace. With the redundancy, longer allowable out-of-service times for one diesel generator were acceptable. During the development of the Unit 2 TSs the NRC staff position was that more restrictive requirements (particularly on allowable out-of-service time) were necessary for two unit operation. These more restrictive requirements were incorporated in the Unit 2 TSs issued with the fuel load license.
By letter dated June 14, 1989, pECo comitted to administrative 1y impose the same ACTION requirements on Unit 1 and to submit an amendment incorporating the Unit ? requirements into the Unit 1 TSs. The changes discussed in Group 5 above implement this comiiment and are acceptable.
L 1
y o
4 The revised Technical Specification pages apprSved and ssued by the staff in these amendments differ from the croposed page1 in the licensee's submittals to allow for appropriate pagination.
Specifically, portions of TS Bases 3/4 4.4 were moved from page B 3/4 4-3 to page B 3/4 4-4 and portions of TS Bases 3/4 8.1, 3/4 8.2, and 3/4 8.3 were moved from page B 3/4 B-1 to page B 3/4 8.2.
The staff i
made no changes to the wording in the licensee's proposed TS pages and notified the licensee regarding this reformatting.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involvet a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 signifi-cant increase-in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criter'aforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant ~
r l
to 10 'FR C1.22(c)(9) and (10), no environmental impact statement nor l
envir1nmental astossment need be prepared in connection with the issuan':e of tt sendment.
5.0 CONCLUS1M The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves L
no_significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 14514) on April 18, 1990 and consulted with the Emonweelth of Pennsylvania. No public connents were received and the Comonwealth of pennsylvania did not have any coments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, l
that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthe public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and l2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's reguletions and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and the security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 30, 1990 Principal Contributor:
kichard J. Clark L
.-