ML20095G973
| ML20095G973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1984 |
| From: | Bradley E PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095G971 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408280273 | |
| Download: ML20095G973 (1) | |
Text
.
i 1
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of a
Docket No. 50-278 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY AMENDMENT TO MAY 30, 1984 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT 3
OF ~
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-56 Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Eugene J. Bradley 2301 Market Street 4
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Attorneys for Philadelphia Electric Company w
pas 2J*a!J'a8 jig-
.p
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No. 50-278 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY AMENDMENT TO MAY 30, 1984
-APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-56 On May 30, 1984, Philadelphia Electric Company, Licensee under Facility Operating License DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Unit 3, filed an Application for Amendment of the License which requested that the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A of the f
Operating License be amended by making certain changes to allow operation of Peach Bottom Unit 3 in the increased core flow mode. !
L.
i
.y letter dated July 17, 1984 (S. L. Daltrof f, PECo to B
~J. F. Stolz,'NRC), Philadelphia Electric Company provided additional information requested by the NRC' staff concerning the implementation of General Electric Company SIL-380, Rev. 1, BWR Core Thermal Hydraulic Stability, dated February 4, 1984.
t On August 10, 1984, in a telephone conversation with the NRC project manager, Licensee was requested to amend the aforementioned application-by including a Technical Specification to address BWR thermal hydraulic stability.
Accordingly, Philadelphia Electric Company, Licensee under Facility Operating License DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3, hereby amends its Application of May 30, 1984 by revising.certain sections as indicated by a vertical bar in the margin of attached pages iv, 10, 149, and 160, and by adding new pages 149a and 164d.
Page 149b is added to accommodate a redistribution of material.
Changes to the existing Technical Specifications which were proposed in the May 30, 1984 Application remain unchanged by this Amendment to the Application.
The proposed changes establish the reactor power and core flow operating limits when operating in either the single or dual recirculation loop modes.
Additionally, the proposed change requires monitoring of, and appropriate response to, APRM and LPRM noise levels when operating at certain high power / low flow conditions identified in the aforementioned SIL-380, Rev. 1.
The
natura1' circulation flow restriction specification (2.1. A.4) on Page 10 is better defined by proposed specification 3.6.F.5, and consequently is. proposed for deletion by this Application.
t:
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The proposed changes involve additional surveillance and operating restrictions which minimize the possiblity of core thermal hydraulic instability.
These changes are being proposed in accord with guidance received from the Division of Licensing of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the August 10, 1984 telephone conversation.
The commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether license amendments involve no significant hazards consideration by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).
Example (ii) is a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications.
1 The changes proposed by this application fit this example of actions not involving a significant hazards consideration.
Consequently, Licenr.e2 has concluded, in accordance with NRC Guidance (48 FR 14870) ax.i the provisions of Section 50.92 Tf.
the Commission's regulations, that these changes do not constitute a significant hazards consideration since they do not:.-
- =-
- o (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or 1
consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) -involve a significant reduction in a. margin of safety.
The Plant Operating Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board (off-site safety _ review committee) have reviewed these proposed chi,riges to the Technical Specifications and have concluded that they do not involve an unreviewed safety question or a significant hazard consideration, and will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
Respectfully submitted, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY By:
Vice PreW"ident l
l l
I
_4
g COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
ss.
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA V. S. Boyer, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Senior Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company, the Applicant herein; that he has read the foregoing Amendment to Application for Amendment of Facility Operating Licensos and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
K2 L V
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisc?) 'ay Y
Ml*j i
of h}siL >- ky -,
( l Notary Pub'lic PATRICIA A. JONES Notary Public, Phila., Phh Co.
My Commission Espires Oct. 13,1986 l
l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that service of the foregoing Amendment was made upon the Connonwealth of Pennsylvania, by mailing a copy thereof, via first-class mail,
. to Thomas R. Gerusky, Director, Bureau of Radiological Protection, P. O. Box
. 2063, Harrisburg, FA 17120; all this ZyAday of August 1984.
/
Euge[eJ./Bradley
/
Attorney for Philadelphia Electric Company l
I