ML20093H781
| ML20093H781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093H778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510200341 | |
| Download: ML20093H781 (2) | |
Text
,
a f(
k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001
- ,8 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.102 AND 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-39 AND NPF-85 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING SIATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353 1.0 INTRODUClION By letter dated May 19, 1995, 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 3.3.3-3 to reflect a new high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system-response time of less than or equal to 60 seconds.
2.0 EVALVATION The HPCI system is a high-pressure reactor coolant makeup system that will start independent of an AC power supply.
The system is capable of providing sufficient water to the reactor vessel to maintain fuel clad temperatures below acceptable post-accident limits.
The system is signaled to start on high drywell pressure or reactor vessel low water level.
The response time in TS Table 3.3.3-3 is the maximum allowable time from the initiating signal to the time when rated flow is available and the injection valve is wide open.
In the licensee's current TS and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, the acceptable HPCI response time is approximately 30 seconds.
The licensee is requesting to change the acceptable response time to less than or equal to 60 seconds. The change is requested for operational flexibility.
The licensee justified its request based on the latest emergency core cooling system (ECCS) loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis which confirmed that the HPCI response time of 60 seconds does not affect the licensing basis peak cladding temperature, which is below 2200*F.
The ECCS LOCA analysis is contained in NEDC-32170P, Revision 1, " Maximum Extended Load Line Limit and ARTS Improvement Program Analyses for Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2,"
July 1993, which was forwarded to the NRC in an August 27, 1993, letter.
The analysis was performed using the GE SAFER /GESTR-LOCA methodology approved by the NRC in a June 1, 1984, letter from C. O. Thomas, NRC, to J. F. Quirk, GE,
" Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-23785, Revision 1, Volume III(P), The GESTR-LOCA and SAFER Models for Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accident." The analysis was performed to demonstrate conformance with 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50.
9510200341 951016 PDR ADOCK 05000352 P
- s
. i In addition to re-evaluating the LOCA analysis, the licensee analyzed other transients (including loss of feedwater flow). The licensee concluded that the applicable design bases will not be adversely affected.
Because the licensee's analysis demonstrates conformance with 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, the staff finds the proposed change to TS Table 3.3.3-3 to increase the HPCI response time from s30 seconds to s60 seconds i
acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i l
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 i
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 35084). Accordingly, the amendments i
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 4
environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
l 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:
S. Dembek Date: October 16, 1995 i
3
- -