ML20064K386
| ML20064K386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064K383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012010081 | |
| Download: ML20064K386 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[g UNITED STATES 4[ ji.,.( ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 p N.. gj WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20%5 M 'f & O
+....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION AMENDMENT NO. 75 TO LICENSE NO. DPR 44 AND AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-56 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UrlITS 2 AND 3 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMDANY 00CKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 8,1980, Philadelphia Electric Company (licensee) proposed amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3.
The amend-ments would revise the Technical Specifications by adding operability and surveillance requirerents for seismic monitoring instrumentation. The licensee's application is in response to our request dated July 1,1980.
II.
EVALUATION By our letter dated July 1,1980, we indicate / to the licensee that a review of. the Technical Specifications for Peach Bottom 2 and 3 reflected that they did not include Limitin? Conditions for Operation or Surveillance Requirements for seismic instrumentation. He requested that the licensee propose appropriate Technical icecifications so that verification of his confomance with the requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 could be assured.
In response to our request the licensee indicated that a new seismic monitoring system which would comply with the guidelines of Regu-latory Guide 1.12 was initiated in the spring of 1980; delivery was expec-ted in September 1980; and the equipment would be operational by the fall of 1980. The system to be installed consists of four (4) triaxial time-history accelerographs, three (3) triaxial peak accelerographs, and a tri-axial response-spectrum recorder.
On September 24, 1980, we discussed, via telephone, the proposed system. The licensee stated that the response-spectrum recorder located in the cable spreading room has two sets of sen-sors associated with it: one triaxial time-history and one response-spectrum monitor, both located on the containment foundation. This infor-mation was documented in the licensee's letter dated October 3,1980.
~ Base'd on this 'infomation, we have detemined that the proposed system is.
~
in confomance with our position set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.12 and is therefore acceptable. We suqqested to the licensee that the triaxial response-spectrum recorder description be included in the bases to clearly I
demonstrate consistency with Regulatory Guide 1.12 regulatory position.
He agreed.
80120100F/L
. The licensee's submittal of Limiting Conditions for Operation for this equipment and associated Surveillance Requirements is consistent with current licensing practice as set forth in NUREG-0123, " Standard Tech-nical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors".
Accordingly, the licensee's submittal, as amended by the staff, 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 fu-tner concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insinnificant froc the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4),
that an environmental icoact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of thess amendments.
IV. CONC [USIONS We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above,-that:
(1) 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 hazar. 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 Cornission's regulatier.s and the issuance of these anendments will not be inimical to the corron defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: November 19, 1980 v
-