ML20080B993
| ML20080B993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080B992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412070118 | |
| Download: ML20080B993 (3) | |
Text
.
' p" "ccog p-
,h 4
E UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g..... g/
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 199 AND 201 TO FACILITY OPERATING 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 INTR 000'T10N By letter dated April 15, 1994, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) sabmitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBnPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested cianges would 1) correct a typographical error in the Unit 3 TS, 2) reflect the name change of Philadelphia Electric Company to PEC0 Energy Company, and 3) implement line-item TS improvements recommended by Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation."
2.0 EVALUATION I
The licensee's request to revise the Unit 3 TS Section 3.3.A.2.f corrects an error which occurred when Amendment 187 was issued on November 29, 1993.
Specifically, due to a typographical error in its submittal, the licensee mistakenly requested and was granted a change to the TS (i.e., the word
" inoperable" was inadvertently substituted for " operable" when the licensee l
retyped and submitted Unit 3 TS page 101 for an emergency amendment request).
The licensee's proposal to correct this error restores the TS to the original wording and is therefore considered an acceptable editorial change.
The licensee also requested to change the name of the owner and licensee of PBAPS from Philadelphia Electric Company to PECO Energy Company.
In a December 21, 1993 letter, the licensee informed the NRC that it was officially changing it's name to the PECO Energy Company c ~ective January 1, 1994.
Therefore, the licensee's name change request an acceptable editorial change which is necessary to ensure that the na...; of the PBAPS licensee corresponds to the company's new name.
In addition to the editorial changes discussed above, the licensee also requested three changes recommended in the staff's GL 93-05.
9412070118 941129 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
pon J
. The licensee's first GL 93-05 change request would revise the frequency in TS Section 4.3.A.2.a to exercise each partially or fully withdrawn operable control rod from every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when operating above the rod worth minimizer low power setpoint (this TS only applies if there are three or more inoperable control rods or if there is one fully or partially withdrawn rod which cannot be moved and for which control rod drive mechanism damage has not been ruled out).
Specifically, the licensee proposed to revise the wording in TS 4.3.A.2.a from
"...at least every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />..." to "...within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />...."
This change request corresponds to GL 93-05 Item 4.2, which recommends that the applicable TS wording be revised from "At least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />..." to "Within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />...."
Therefore, the staff finds that the licensee's proposal is equivalent to the GL 93-05 recommendation and is acceptable.
The licensee's second GL 93-05 change request would revise TS 4.4.A.2 to allow for the replacement charge on the explosive valve for the standby liquid control system to be from either the same manufactured batch as the one fired or another batch whicn has been certified by having one of the batch successfully fired.
Specifically, the licensee proposed to revise the statement "The replacement charges to be installed will be selected from the same manufactured batch as the tested charge" to "The replacement charge for the explosive valve shall be from the same manufactured batch as the one fired or from another batch which has been certified by having one of the batch successfully fired." The staff's GL 93-05, Item 4.3 wording restates the following General Electric Boiling Water Reactors /4 standard TS (BWR/4 STS) wording:
"The replacement charge for the explosive valve shall be from the same manufactured batch as the one fired or from another batch which has been certified by having one of the batch successfully fired." The licensee is proposing to utilize this sentence from the BWR/4 STS (and restated in GL 93-05).
The staff reviewed the licensee's proposal against the recommended wording in the BWR/4 STS. The staff finds that the licensee's proposal for revising TS 4.4.A.2 is identical to the applicable BWR/4 STS (and GL 93-05) wording and is therefore acceptable.
The licensee's third GL 93-05 change request would revise TS Section 4.4.B.3 to functionally test each standby liquid control system pump loop from monthly to at least once per 92 days.
Specifically, the licensee proposed to revise "At least once per month..." to "At least once per 92 days...." The staff's GL 93-05, Item 4.3 recommends that the Standby Liquid Control System pump test be required quarterly (i.e., every 92 days), in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code.
The staff finds that the licensee's proposal is equivalent to the GL 93-05 recommendation and is therefore acceptable.
The three changes that the licensee is proposing, in accordance with the recommendations of GL 93-05, extend or change surveillance requirements.
In order to demonstrate that the recommendations are compatible with a particular plant's operating experience, GL 93-05 requests licensees to include a statement in the license amendment request that "all proposed TS changes are compatible with plant operating experience and are consistent with this
(T
. )
i guidance." To satisfy this request, the licensee included the following statement in its submittal:
"The proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements for TS Sections 4.3. A.2.a, 4.4. A.2, and 4.4.B.3 are compatible with PBAPS operating experience and is [ sic) consistent with the intent of the corresponding recommendations in NUREG-1366, ' Improvements to Technical
. Specifications Surveillance Requirements,' guidance in Generic Letter 93-05, and the format of the PBAPS TS."
The staff finds that the licensee's statement is equivalent to the GL 93-05 recommendation and is therefore acceptable.
Therefore, the licensee has acceptably justified its editorial changes and has conformed to the guidance of GL 93-05 and the BWR/4 STS for the three non-editorial changes.
Consequently, the licensee's proposal is 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
i 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 and cdministrative procedures or requirements.
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 27064). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).
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, i
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.
i Principal Contributor:
S. Dembek Date: November 29, 1994 i