ML20071C570
| ML20071C570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071C569 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303020426 | |
| Download: ML20071C570 (2) | |
Text
_
h UNITED STATES E'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
E wasmessoTom.o,c. asses e,
- p e....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS.'87 AND87 TO FACILITY PPERATING LICENSES 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,' UNITS NOS 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-27_8 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 1,1982, the Philadelphia Electric-Company (PECo or the licensee) made application to amend the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3, to permit an alternate method of performing the core spray loop flow rate test. The licensee indicated that in order to eliminate minor cavitation and vibration in the core spray test valve, which occurs when performing the two pump loop flow test, single pump flow rate testing was being proposed.
EVALUATION The licensee indicated in their December 1,1982, submittal that modifications to the core spray loop flow rate surveillance testing were being proposed to eliminate cavitation and vibration in the core spray test valve which occurs when perfoming the two pump loop flow test as required by the TSs. Through resizing a restricting orifice (RO-42) and locating it further upstream of the core spray test valye (M0-26) and by adding another restricting orifice (R0-42-1) downstream of the valve, the licensee indicates that cavitations and vibrations will be eliminated. These modifications will require an alternate method of perf6rming core, spray loop flow
- - ' ~
rate testing; namely, single pump flow rate, testing versus two pump loop f'ow rate testing.
As stated in the current Surveillance Requirements of TS Section 4.5.A[.(d) for Units 2 and 3, the two pump loop flow test should ' deliver at least1-
'6250 gpm against a system head corresponding to a-reac. tor vessel pressure of 105 psig. The licensee's alternative method would provide that each pump in each' loop would be tested to ensure the delivery of at least 3125 gpm against a system head corresponding to a reactor vessel pressure of 105 psig.
t I
4 I
8303020426 830218 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
pon
3 2-We have determined through a review of the licensee's submittal that' proper sizing of the restricting orifices will provide verification of individual punp capacity. Furthermore, we have determined that verification of individual pump capacity denonstrates proper loop flow capability.
We conclude, based upon the above considerations, that the proposed.
changes to the TSs are acceptable.
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 further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need'not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION i
We have. concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
3 (1) because the amendnents do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant I
reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a l
significant hazards 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: February 18, 1983 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Gerry Gears, Wayne Hodges, and Joel Page.
4 t
r;-
l