ML20129A568
| ML20129A568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129A552 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507150335 | |
| Download: ML20129A568 (1) | |
Text
.
>RCEC 8
UNITED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 gn,/
5AFETY EVALUATI0ft AMEllDI1EliT 00.13 TO NPF-22 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0fl, UtilT 2 DOCKET h0. 50-388 Intrcduction By letter dated February 7,1985 the licensee requested a change to Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-2, Trip Function Sa, which is footnoted to indicate that a final setpoint will be developed during the Startup Test program.
Based on data taken during Startup Test 14.3, the trip setpoint and allowable value for the RCIC Line Delta Pressure - High instrumentation has been deteruinea.
Evaluation The intent of the trip setpoint in question is to insure isolation of the f,CIC systcn occurs in the event of a design basis pipe break flow between 2.72 erd 3.0 times maximum normal flew. Since the current pressure differcr.tiel trip setpoint valve was based on engineering judgment and operating experience, it does not necessarily proviae RCIC isolation within the c'esign basis pipe break flow values. The proposed chance v.culo replace the current trip setpoint values taasec cr. actual inplant test data cbtained during the startup test progrut.i. This would assure that RCIC isolation occurs within the desired design basis pipe break flow values. Because the proposed change is based cn neasured data, the staff apprcves this change.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a char.ge in the installation or use of a fccility ccrrrert.r.t located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has deternined that the arr.endment involves nc significent increase in the amounts, arc' re significant change in the types, of u.y effluents that may be released oftsite, and that there is no significent increase in individual or cLt.:ulative occupational radiatien exposure. The Commission has presicusl; issued a proposed finding that this amendtrent involves no significant h6zarcs consideration ano there has been no public comment on such fir.cing. Accordingly, this ar enc'rert meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set fcrth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Fursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environnertel irpct statement or envirnnr: ental assessn.ent need be prepared in conr.cctier with the issuanct of this amendment.
Conclusion We have cercluded, based on the consideratier:s ciscussed above.,thet:
(1) tFtre is reasonable assurance that the heelth and safety of the pttlir d
ret be endangered by operation in the pcpcseo nanner, and Wj such c.cf %ities will be cercLctec in etnpliance with the Lou..issitr.'s regulations and the issuance of this errerer ent will not be inimical to the ctrrcr c'eferse and security or to the health ar.d sefety of the public.
Dattd: Jul 0 2 m e507150335 050702 PDR ADOCK 050003Bs p
PDR l
1