ML20065J577
| ML20065J577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065J567 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9404180299 | |
| Download: ML20065J577 (2) | |
Text
I g
[p* *to k o
^(
E UNITED STATES L'sg
~j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 S_AFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.
189 AND 194 TO FACILITY OPERATING l
LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 1.0 INTROP_yCTION By letter dated December 21, 1993, as supplemented on March 11, 1994, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise TS Table 3.2.F,
" Surveillance Instrumentation," to accurately describe the main stack high range and reactor building roof vent high range radiation monitors, and delete previously approved Amendment No.168 for Unit 3.
Amendment No. 168 was an emergency temporary change to the TS to allow fuel loading to take place without all control rods fully inserted into the core.
The supplemental letter corrected an editorial mistake in the licensee's December 21, 1993 submittal and did not expand the scope of the original Federal Reaister notice or change the no significant hazards determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposal would revise TS Table 3.2.F to account for plant modifications that have caused the table to be inaccurate.
This inaccuracy was caused by modifications which were installed just prior to approval of license Amendments 128 and 131 (for Units 2 and 3, respectively). These modifications removed a panel to allow the installation of new hydrogen chemistry panels. Amendments 128 and 131 referred to the pre-modification panel configuration. Therefore, when the modifications were installed, a discrepancy existed between the TS and the as-built condition of the plant.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed changes and agrees that the changes merely update Table 3.2.F to reflect the as-built condition of the plant.
PBAPS, Unit 3, Amendment No. 168, was originally granted to minimize the delay of fuel inspections while the licensee evaluated inspection results and prepared for cleaning activities during the cycle 8 refueling outage (Unit 3 is currently operating in cycle 10).
This TS is no longer applicable and the licensee has requested that it be deleted.
9404100299 940407 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
fe 1
. Based on the staff's review, the TS changes requested by the licensee will improve the accuracy and clarity of the TS and are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no 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 radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 7697). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) thera is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S. Dembek Date:
April 7, 1994 l
l A