|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20217K9931999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 234 to License DPR-56 ML20217B4331999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 233 to License DPR-56 ML20216H7091999-09-24024 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 229 & 232 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212D1281999-09-17017 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Alternatives CRR-03, 05,08,09,10 & 11 ML20211D5501999-08-23023 August 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 228 & 231 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20206A2921999-04-20020 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Proposed Changes to EALs for PBAPS Are Consistent with Guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 & Identified Deviations Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.47(b)(4) & App E to 10CFR50 ML20205K7411999-04-0707 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 227 & 230 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20196G7021998-12-0202 December 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative to Delay Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Circumferential Welds by Two Operating Cycles ML20155C6071998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 226 to License DPR-44 ML20155C1681998-10-22022 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative Plan for Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Longitudinal Welds ML20154J2401998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 224 & 228 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H4771998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 225 & 229 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154G6821998-10-0101 October 1998 SER Related to Request for Relief 01A-VRR-1 Re Inservice Testing of Automatic Depressurization Sys Safety Relief Valves at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20154G6631998-10-0101 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 223 & 227 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20153B9651998-09-14014 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 9 to License DPR-12 ML20238F2661998-08-24024 August 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 222 to License DPR-44 ML20237A7761998-08-10010 August 1998 SER Accepting Licensee Response to NRC Bulleting 95-002, Unexpected Clogging of RHR Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode ML20236R8281998-07-15015 July 1998 Safety Evaluation Approving Proposed Alternative (one-time Temporary non-Code Repair) Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3) (II) ML20248F4781998-06-0101 June 1998 Corrected Page 1 to SE Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively.Original Page 1 of SE Had Three Typos ML20247N5351998-05-11011 May 1998 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Program for Pump & Valves for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ML20198L3331997-12-18018 December 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Approval of Proposed Merger of Atlantic Energy,Inc,& Delmarva Power & Light Co ML20198S2161997-10-24024 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Change to Provisions Identified in Rev 14 of PBAPS QAP Description Re Nuclear Review Board Meeting Frequency ML20212G8301997-10-24024 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20217J5631997-10-0909 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 225 to License DPR-56 ML20217J6161997-10-0707 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Re Alternative to Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Weld Insps for Plant,Unit 3 ML20211L6241997-10-0303 October 1997 Safety Evaluation Authorizing Licensee Proposed Use of Code Case N-516-1 to Weld Modified Suction Strainer in Suppression Chamber at Plant ML20217D8161997-09-30030 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 224 to License DPR-56 ML20211D6201997-09-17017 September 1997 SER Accepting VT-2 Examiner Qualification Request for PECO Energy Company,Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20216G5601997-09-0404 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 220 & 223 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20217M8001997-08-19019 August 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 219 & 222 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20149L2841997-07-23023 July 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Relief Request RR-22 for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ISI Program ML20140B0371997-05-30030 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting QAP Description Change ML20135B4111997-02-19019 February 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 218 & 221 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20149L8681996-11-15015 November 1996 SER Accepting Core Spray Piping Insp & Flaw Evaluation for Plant,Unit 2 ML20149L2441996-01-29029 January 1996 Safety Evaluation Accepting Insp & Evaluation Methodology for Operation of Unit 3 Core Shroud for Duration of Current Operating Cycle,Performed in Response to GL 94-03 ML20058F5641993-11-19019 November 1993 SE Accepting Util 930305 Response to NRC Bulletin 90-01, Suppl 1, Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters Mfg by Rosemount ML20057B6441993-09-16016 September 1993 SER Concluding That Safe Shutdown Capability at Plant, Satisfies Requirements of Section Iii.G & Iii.L of App R to 10CFR50 ML20126H9031992-12-23023 December 1992 Safety Evaluation Granting Relief from Inservice Insp Requirements for Facilities ML20127N4941992-11-17017 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 120-day Response to Suppl 1 to GL 87-02 ML20062C7501990-10-26026 October 1990 Safety Evaluation Re Evaluation of Response to NRC Bulletin 90-002, Loss of Thermal Margin Caused by Channel Box Bow ML20246E0331989-08-21021 August 1989 SER Supporting Util Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2,1 (Parts 1 & 2).Programs Exist for Identifying safety-related Components Required for Reactor Trip Function & Vendor Interface W/Nmss Vendor for Required Components ML20205A8801988-10-31031 October 1988 Safety Evaluation of Util Plan for Restart of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ML20148P3351988-04-0101 April 1988 SER Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 Re Equipment Classification Program for All safety-related Components ML20148E6301988-01-15015 January 1988 SER Accepting Util 840116,0927 & 850805 Responses to Generic Ltr 82-33,Item 6 Re Compliance w/post-accident Monitoring Instrumentation Guidelines of Reg Guide 1.97 Concerning Emergency Response Facilities ML20236D0541987-10-22022 October 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Repts on Computer Program Analyses Methods Intended for Use in Part of Plant Core Reload Analyses ML20235D2431987-09-22022 September 1987 Safety Evaluation Re Proposed Onsite Storage of Liquid Oxygen & Hydrogen for Implementation of Hydrogen Water Chemistry.Permanent Hydrogen Water Installation Acceptable ML20209H0201987-04-24024 April 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Re Torus Attached Piping Mods - Mark I Program ML20204C1001986-07-24024 July 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Listed Util Responses & Actions Reviewed During Insp on 840913-19 Re Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1,3.1.2,3.2.1,3.2.2 & 4.5.1 ML20141F6071986-04-0808 April 1986 Safety Evaluation Granting Util Requests for Relief from Inservice Insp Requirements of ASME Code,Section XI ML20209C3141986-03-20020 March 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Shroud Head Connection Replacement at Facility,Per Util 860107 Submittal 1999-09-24
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217K9931999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 234 to License DPR-56 ML20217B4331999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 233 to License DPR-56 ML20217G3541999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20216H7091999-09-24024 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 229 & 232 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212D1281999-09-17017 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Alternatives CRR-03, 05,08,09,10 & 11 ML20212A5871999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Peach Bottom,Units 2 & 3.With ML20211D5501999-08-23023 August 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 228 & 231 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212H6311999-08-19019 August 1999 Rev 2 to PECO-COLR-P2C13, COLR for Pbaps,Unit 2,Reload 12 Cycle 13 ML20210N7641999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Jul 1999 for PBAPS Units 2 & 3. with ML20209H1121999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20195H8841999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206N1661999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1999 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206A2921999-04-20020 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Proposed Changes to EALs for PBAPS Are Consistent with Guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 & Identified Deviations Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.47(b)(4) & App E to 10CFR50 ML20205K7411999-04-0707 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 227 & 230 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20205P5851999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1999 for Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3.With ML20207G9971999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1999 for Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3.With ML20199E3471998-12-31031 December 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1998 for Peach Bottom,Units 1 & 2.With ML20205K0381998-12-31031 December 1998 PECO Energy 1998 Annual Rept. with ML20206P1651998-12-31031 December 1998 Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants, Section Iii.F, Automatic Fire Detection ML20206D3651998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 PBAPS Annual 10CFR50.59 & Commitment Rev Rept. with ML20206D3591998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 PBAPS Annual 10CFR72.48 Rept. with ML20196G7021998-12-0202 December 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative to Delay Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Circumferential Welds by Two Operating Cycles ML20196E8261998-11-30030 November 1998 Response to NRC RAI Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 ML20198B8591998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Nov 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20206R2571998-11-17017 November 1998 PBAPS Graded Exercise Scenario Manual (Sections 1.0 - 5.0) Emergency Preparedness 981117 Scenario P84 ML20198C6751998-11-0505 November 1998 Rev 3 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 3,Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20195E5341998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Oct 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20155C6071998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 226 to License DPR-44 ML20155C1681998-10-22022 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative Plan for Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Longitudinal Welds ML20155H7721998-10-12012 October 1998 Rev 1 to COLR for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2, Reload 12,Cycle 13 ML20154J2401998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 224 & 228 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H4771998-10-0505 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 225 & 229 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154G6821998-10-0101 October 1998 SER Related to Request for Relief 01A-VRR-1 Re Inservice Testing of Automatic Depressurization Sys Safety Relief Valves at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Units 2 & 3 ML20154G6631998-10-0101 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 223 & 227 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20154H5541998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20153B9651998-09-14014 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 9 to License DPR-12 ML20151Y2901998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3. with ML20238F2661998-08-24024 August 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 222 to License DPR-44 ML20237B9531998-08-10010 August 1998 Specification for ISI Program Third Interval,Not Including Class Mc,Primary Containment for Bpaps Units 2 & 3 ML20237A7761998-08-10010 August 1998 SER Accepting Licensee Response to NRC Bulleting 95-002, Unexpected Clogging of RHR Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode ML20237A5351998-07-31031 July 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for July 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20236R8281998-07-15015 July 1998 Safety Evaluation Approving Proposed Alternative (one-time Temporary non-Code Repair) Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3) (II) ML20236M3471998-06-30030 June 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20249C4791998-06-0202 June 1998 Rev 6 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 2 Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20248F4781998-06-0101 June 1998 Corrected Page 1 to SE Supporting Amends 221 & 226 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively.Original Page 1 of SE Had Three Typos ML20248F7441998-05-31031 May 1998 Reactor Vessel Working Group,Response to RAI Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity ML20248M3001998-05-31031 May 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 ML20247N5351998-05-11011 May 1998 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Program for Pump & Valves for Plant,Units 2 & 3 ML20249C4751998-05-0707 May 1998 Rev 5 to COLR for PBAPS Unit 2 Reload 11,Cycle 12 ML20247G0721998-04-30030 April 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1998 for Pbaps,Units 2 & 3 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
. - _ ._
O SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT- ~
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 RECOMBINER CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(ii) (RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER NO. 84-09)
Background
S On December 2,1981, the NRC amended S50.44 of its regulations by additional provisions in S50.44 (c)(3). One of these provisions requires licensees of LWRs that rely upon purge /repressurization systems as the primary means of hydrogen control to provide a recombiner capability by the end of the first scheduled outage after July 5,1982, of sufficient duration to permit the required modifications. Those plants for which notices of hearing or applications for construction permits were published on or after November 5,
~
1970, are not permitted by 10 CFR 50.44(e) to rely on purge /repressurization systems as the primary means for hydrogen control. Therefore, these plants are not affected by this requirement. However, the Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, are affected by the new requirement.
As a' result of the new inerting' requirements in S50.44(c)(3), the BWR Mark I Owners Group undertook a substantial program to demonstrate that the Mark I plants potentially affected by the recombiner capability requirements of the rule do not need to rely on the safety grade purge /repressurization system required by the original 10 CFR 50.44 rule as the primary means of hydrogen control. Extensive review and independent studies by the NRC staff supported the findings of the Mark I Owners Group program from the perspective of providing additional recombiner capability. The staff, however, did not conclude that the purge /repressurization system could be eliminated.
8507150457 850M PDR ADOCK 050 PDR 7 P
- - ,n -
e , - - _ . , --...,--,,.,.,n -- , -
c.w.- _, , _ . , ,- - - . -
_2_
The Commission has determined, for purposes of providing recombiner capability, that a Mark I BWR plant will be found to not rely on purge /repres-
- surization systems as the primary means of hydrogen control, if certain tech-nical criteria are satisfied. These criteria were clarified in the Generic Letter No. 84-09 (Ref. 1), dated May 8, 1984, which was sent to all licensees of operating reactors. Therefore, the recombiner capability defined in 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(ii) need not be furnished for those inerted Mark I BWR contain-ments where the licensees are able to demonstrate that: 1) the Generic Study (Ref. 4) is applicable to the licensee's plant; 2) the plant has Technical Specifications requiring that when the containment is required to be inerted, the containment atmosphere be less than four percent oxygen; 3) the plant has only nitrogen or recycled containment atmosphere for use in all pneumatic control systems within containment; and 4) there are no potential sources of oxygen in containment other than that resulting from radiolysis of the reactor coolant.
Most of the affected Mark I BWR plants have Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) Systems utilizing nitrogen or air. In order to clarify the staff's position regarding i v;e systems, the Generic Letter 84-09 stated that a plant that has a " safety grade" purge /repressurization system designed to conform with the general requirements of criteria 41, 42 and 43 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50 and installed in accordance with S50.44(f) or S50.44(g) must continue to have that system, even though it may be determined with respect to $50.44 (c)(3) that the plant does not rely on that system as the primary means for hydrogen control; thus, a decision on recombiner capability does not affect
3-the requirements of $50.44(f) and S50.44(g) for the " safety grade" purge /re-pressurization system.
s.
Evaluation In a letter dated July 31, 1984, (Ref. 5), the licensee for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, the Philadelphia Electric Company, submitted a response to the staff's Generic Letter 84-09. The licensee stated that the criteria presented in Generic Letter 84-09 are satisfied for the Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, and therefore, a recombiner capability is not required.
CSB has reviewed the compliance of Peach Bottom Station, Units 2 and 3 with the criteria set by the staff (Ref. 1, 2 & 3). We have found that: The licensee has participated in the generic study (Ref. 4) made by the BWR Owners Group. The main parameter regarding the applicability of the study was found to be the ratio of the core thermal power to the free drywell volume. The applicability of the study to Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, was addressed in Chapter 1.3 of the study.
Since Peach Bottom was one of the plants used in the generic study, we agree with the conclusions that the generic study is applicable to Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, providing that the three criteria of Generic Letter 84-09 as discussed below have been satisfied.
t
-4
- 1) Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specification 3.7.A.5.a requires that when the containment is inerted, the containment atmosphere is to contain less than four percent oxygen. This satisfies the first of the three criteria of Generic Letter 84-09.
- 2) The pneumatic controlled systems inside containment are supplied with recycled containment atmosphere from the Primary Containment Instrument Gas S'ystem. As a back up, the essential pneumatic users inside containment are provided with safety grade nitrogen gas cylinders. The instrument air system can be used as a back-up to the normal nitrogen supply. In case of a pressure loss in the drywell pneuntic system, the instrument air' back-up system would be automatically actuated.
It has been confirmed with the licensee during a telecon, dated April 3, 1985, that the operators have the instrumentation needed to be aware of the actuation of the back-up air system and, therefore, proper action can be taken. In case of an accident, the back-up air system supply lines would automatically be isolated. The CSB finds this acceptable, however, the description of the use of the back-up air system should be formally documented. The licensee has committed to do that in a future submittal.
The CAD system at Peach Bottom uses nitrogen as its working fluid.
8
~- - - - - - - , , . - . . . - - - - - - - - . - - - .c-.,< ,m- + re ew-- ,,---,,,,---m---------,.,-,,,m,,,.-.,,-----w, r- -
E i
l Based on the above discussion, we find that Peach Bottom meets the !
second of the three criteria of Generic Letter 84-09.
g.
- 3) The licensee performed an engineering study to identify the potential sources of oxygen in the containment. The only credible source of oxygen found was the radiolysis of the reactor coolant.
The Service Air System at Peach Bottom Station is normally valved out and, therefore, is not a source of oxygen into the containment.
Peach Bottom does not have breathing air systems, inflatable door seals, pressurized penetrations or MSIV-leakage control systems that could be considered as potential oxygen sources.
The licensee has committed to provide written dccumentation to confirm the bases to disregard the potential sources of oxygen mentioned above, as discussed during the telecon, dated April 3, 1985. Tiie licensee provided this documentation on May 1,1985(6).
Conclusion We conclude that the proposed bases for not furnishing a recombiner capability for the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 are acceptable.
7
References:
(1) Letter from D. G. Eisenhut to All Licensees dated May 8,1984, "Recombiner Capability Requirements of 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(ii)
(Generic Letter 84-09).
, (2) Memorandum from R. J. Mattson to D. G. Eisenhut dated January 24, 1984, "DSI Review of Requests from Mark I/BWR Licensees for Relief from the Hydrogen Recombiner Capability requirement of 10 CFR Part 50.44."
(3) SECY-83-292, " Applicability of Recombiner Capability Requirements of Revised 10 CFR 50.44 to BWR licensees with Mark I Containments." l l
(4) " Generation and Mitigation of Combustible Gas Mixtures in Inerted BWR Mark I Containments," by F. R. Hayes, L. B. Nesbitt and P. P. Stancavage.
Technical Report NEDO-22155/82-REDO-69/ CLASS 1/ June 1982.
(5) Letter from S. L. Daltroff, PECo, to U. G. Eisennut, ?!RC, dated July 31, 1984, "Recombiner Capability Requirements of 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(oo)."
(6) Letter from S. L. Daltroff, PECo, to H. L. Thompson, NRC, dated fiay 1, 1985.
l l