ML20084R372
| ML20084R372 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R354 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506090272 | |
| Download: ML20084R372 (3) | |
Text
!
ps trov y-t UNITED STATES s
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINOTON, D.C. 20565 0001
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 202 AND 205 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PECO ENERGY 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 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 10, 1995, the PECO Energy Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would correct administrative errors in Section 4.11.A of the TSs. The errors were made in the TS issued by Amendments 9 and 7 dated June 25, 1975.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In a letter dated December 10, 1974, the NRC requested that the Philadelphia Electric Company submit a licenso amendment application to add limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) and surveillance requirements (SRs) to the existing PBAPS TSs based on model TSs provided with the letter. The requested LCOs and SRs concerned the control room air treatment system and the standby i
gas treatment system.
By letter dated February 28, 15/5, the licensee submitted a license amendment application in order to comply with the NRC's request. However, the TSs proposed by the licensee differed from the model TSs provided by the NRC in the December 10, 1974 letter. In order to resolve the differences, the staff and the licensee held a meeting on April 9, 1975. At the meeting, which is documented in a summary dated April 24, 1975, the staff and licensee agreed to appropriate resolution of those differences and in a letter dated May 13, 1975, the licensee modified its original application to reflect the changes established at the April 9 meeting. Subsequently, on June 25, 1975, the NRC issued license Amendments 9 and 7 to the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TSs based on the licensee's February 28 and May 13, 1975 submittals.
i In issuing Amendments 9 and 7, the NRC replaced the requirements and text in existing TSs Section 3.ll.A and 4.ll.A with requirements and text proposed in 9506090272 950530 DR ADOCK 0500 7
3
, the licensee's submittals. The NRC issued the new Section 3.11.A and 4.11.A as pages 233 and 233a of the TSs. The staff also reissued page 234 of the TSs however, the staff failed to delete all portions of the original Sections 3.ll.A and 4.ll.A from page 234. Thus the reissued page 234 contained an original requirement designated 4.11.A.d which stated:
"A sample of the charcoal filter shall be analyzed once per year to assure halogen removal efficiency of at least 99.5 percent."
The licensee implemented the new requirements of Amendments 9 and 7 but did not notify the NRC of the error on reissued page 234. The TSs in Section 3.11 and 4.11 were modified by several license amendments between 1975 and 1995, however, neither the staff nor the licensee addressed the anomalous TSs 4.ll.A.d.
By Amendments 184 and 189, the SR 4.ll.A.d, as worded above, was relocated to page 233a and redesignated 4.11.A.2.e.
During a review of surveillance procedures and TSs surveillance requirements in February 1995, the licensee observed that no specific surveillance test was being performed to address the requirements of TS 4.ll.A.2.e (former TS 4.ll.A.d).
During telephone discussions between the licensee and the staff on February 2,1995, the staff confirmed that TS 4.11.A.d was intended to be deleted and superseded by the more explicit requirements imposed by Amendments 9 and 7.
The staff requested that the licensee submit a proposed license amendment to correct the administrative error propagated in the issuance of Amendments 9 and 7 by deleting TS 4.ll.A.2.e.
By letter dated February 10, 1995, the licensee submitted a proposed amendment to the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 TSs. The licensee proposed to delete TS 4.ll.A.2.e in its entirety.
2.1 Evaluation The staff evaluated the licensee's February 10, 1995 submittal. The staff agrees that the requested change is administrative in nature. The deletion of the original control room emergency ventilation LCOs and SRs and implementation of new requirements was previously evaluated by the staff and documented in the safety evaluation that accompanied Amendments 9 and 7.
In that safety evaluation, the staff found that the LCOs and SRs intended to replace the original LCOs and SRs were acceptable. The requested change implements previously approved changes and is therefore, 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 a requirement with respect to installation or use of a W
av
. facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change the surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, I
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 (60 FR 20521). 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 3
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:
J. Shea Date:
fiay 30, 1995 eP
,-