ML20100P373

Submits Revs to No Significant Hazards Consideration Analysis Based on Conversation W/Snec Facility Project Manager Re Deficiencies Found in Text Supporting Proposed Changes Contained in SNEC Tscr 57

ML20100P373
Person / Time
Site:	Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png
Issue date:	02/28/1996
From:	Kuehn G SAXTON NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
C301-96-2011, NUDOCS 9603110160
Download: ML20100P373 (2)

Text

.  :

4

- SAXTON NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL CORPORATION j GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES SYSTEM ,

Jersey Centrol Power & Ught MAluNG ADDRESS:

General PuWie Utilities Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond Reed

=

• Metropoliten Edison Company Pers',peny, NJ 07054

'" Pennsylvania Electric Company

- February 28, 1996 C301-96-20ll i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen, 1

Subject:

Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation Operating License No. DPR-4 Docket No. 50-146 TSCR 57 No Significant Hazards Consideration l Analysis Editorial Revision Based on a conversation with the Project Manager for the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC) facility, Mr. A. Adams Jr., deficiencies were identified in the text pertaining to the determination of No Significant ,

Hazards Considerations Analysis supporting the proposed changes contained in SNEC Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No. 57.

It was identified that the discussion presented in Section IV.I. did not address consideration given to the consequences of flooding at the facility.

The lead paragraph of the section has been revised to correct that oversight.

Words were inadvertently omitted from the second sentence of Section IV.2.

The text has been revised to complete the sentence.

These changes to the No Significant Hazards Consideration Analysis are reflected in the attachment which will serve as a replacement of Section IV.

Sincerely, W

G. A. Ku hn Jr.

Vice President SNEC WGH Attachment cc: Administrator, NRC Region I NRC Project Manager NRR NRC Project Scientist, Region I 9603110160 960220 1 PDR ADOCK 05000146 P p99  %

Attachment 1 i C301-96-2011 ,

Page 1 of 1 IV. No Sionificant Hazards Consideration Analysis SNEC has determined that this TSCR does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92. Issuance of the proposed TS changes would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The SNEC facility ended power operation in May 1972 and the reactor core has been removed. In its present condition, the only accidents applicable to the site are fire, flooding and radiological hazard. Activities associated with the expansion of the permissible work sccpe (changes to TS A.3) will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a fire. There is no effect on the probability or consequences of flooding nor would there be a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an offsite radiological hazard.

The relocation of administrative 1y controlled accesses in accordance with the revised wording of Section A.2.b and the proposed clarification of Figure 1 of the TS would have no affect on analyzed accidents.

Activities associated with the construction of the Decommissioning Support Facilities and the existence of the completed buildings depicted on the revised figure will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a fire, flood or radiological hazard.

The proposed changes identified by this TS change request do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. For the reasons provided in 1 above, the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated will not be created by the performance of the activities delineated in Section A.3 of proposed revised TS. There is similarly no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated that would result from relocation of administratively controlled accesses within the Containment Vessel; from the flexibility to relocate / modify the exclusion area fence through the addition of the note to Figure 1; or from the identification of the " footprint",

construction and existence of the completed decommissioning support facilities.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. For the reasons provided in 1 above, none of the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.