ML20078J179
| ML20078J179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078J172 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9502070336 | |
| Download: ML20078J179 (2) | |
Text
..
pa a'c%
=*
1 UNITED STATES f
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
~t WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001 4
e 9.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQM RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 88 AND 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-39 AND NPF-85 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 31, 1994, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would revise TS Table 1.2 and TS Bases 3/4.9.11 to remove the average reactor coolant temperature requirement in Operational Condition (OPCON) 5, Refueling.
These amendments address Section 5 of the licensee's August 31, 1994 submittal, " Remove Temperature Requirement for Operational Condition 5."
There are five remaining items to this application.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to change the average reactor coolant temperature requirement from "s;140*F" to "N/A" for the definition of OPCON 5 in TS Table 1.2.
The licensee stated that this change would eliminate the confusion as to which OPCON is applicable if the reactor coolant temperature exceeds 140*F with the reactor pressure vessel head removed. Current TS requirement could be interpreted that a temperature greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit would imply that the unit is no longer in OPCON 5; however, the unit is clearly not in OPCON 4.
To reflect this change, the licensee proposed to revise TS Bases 3.4.9.11, " Residual Heat Removal and Coolant Circulation," to eliminate the reference to the OPCON 5 temperature requirement of 140*F.
The licensee reviewed the potential effect on reactor coolant system materials as a result of eliminating the temperature requirement in OPCON 5, and determined that the material fracture toughness analysis or reduction in the protection against non-ductile failure will not be affected.
In addition, the licensee performed an evaluation for the potential increased temperature effects on adequate shutdown margin, and determined that the potential increase in temperature between 140*F and 200*F, staying below OPCON 4, would have a conservative and negligible effect on shutdown margin.
The staff agrees with the licensee's justification for change, and that the changes reflect the requirements delineated in NUREG-1433, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4," including Table 1.1-1, Modes, 9502070336 950127 PDR ADOCK 05000352 P
~ '.
. and B 3.9.8, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) - High Water Level. Hence, the staff concludes that the changes to TS Table 1.2 and TS Bases 3.4.9.11 reflect the removal of temperature requirement in OPCON 5, Refueling, is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i 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 a requirement 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 55884). 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) there 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:
T. Liu Date:
January 27, 1995