ML20137F324
| ML20137F324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1985 |
| From: | Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137F318 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508260195 | |
| Download: ML20137F324 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-277 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-278 AMENDMENT TO FEBRUARY 19, 1985 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-44 & DPR-56 Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Eugene J. Bradley 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Attorneys for Philadelphia Electric Company 8508260195 850822 PDR ADOCK 05000277 p
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-277 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-278 AMENDMENT TO FEBRUARY 19, 1985 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-44 & DPR-56 On February 19, 1985, Philadelphia Electric Company, Licensee under Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, filed an Application for Amendment of the Licenses which requested that the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A of the Operating Licenses be amended by making certain changes relating to the radiological effluent Technical Specifications issued August 3, 1984 as Amendment Nos.
102 and 104 to Peach Bottom Unit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.
The February 19, 1985 Application requested the
'following changes:
(1)
Revise page 206 of the Technical Specifications to I
require verifying that the radwaste discharge valve automatically closes when the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor indicates an "INOP" failure instead of a "downscale" failure.
(2)
Revise page 214 of the Technical Specifications to delete the reference to a specific standard gas concentration to enable calibrating the'two types of l
hydrogen analyzers used at Peach Bottom.
(3)
Revise page 211 of the Technical Specifications to reduce the frequency of performing an instrument check i
on the main stack sample flow rate monitor from once/ day
{
to once/ week.
I l
Subsequently, the NRC staff, by telecon dated April 4, 1985, requested the Licensee to revise its Application by I
incorporating into the proposed Technical Specifications the range of gas concentrations to be used for calibrating the hydrogen analyzers, with the specific concentrations identified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and surveillance testing of the main stack sample flow line Hi/Lo pressure switches in order to justify the requested reduced test frequency of the main stack sample flow rate monitor.
Accordingly, Philadelphia Electric Company, Licensee under Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, respectively, hereby amends its Application of February 19, 1985, by deleting the proposed Technical Specification pages 211 and 214 referred to in the February 19, 1985, Application, and substituting therefor updated pages 211 and 214 which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
A discussion of the proposed revisions follows:
(1)
The current Technical Specification 4.8.C.6c on page 214 requires calibrating the recombiner hydrogen analyzers using a 1% hydrogen'-balance nitrogen gas and a 4%
hydrogen-balance nitrogen gas.
As a result of a plant modification implemented prior to the effective date of Amendment Nos. 102 and 104, two new helium-immune hydrogen analyzers were installed in parallel with two of the existing hydrogen analyzers for the purpose of facilitating main condenser leak testing'.
The calibration gases required for the new helium-immune hydrogen analyzers'are different from the calibration gases required for the existing hydrogen analyzers.
The span gas used to calibrate the existing hydrogen analyzers is 4% hydrogen-balance nitrogen.
However, the span gas required for the new helium-immune hydrogen analyzers is 2% hydrogen-balance air.
Therefore, to properly calibrate both types of hydrogen analyzers, we
. = _ - _ -
are requesting a revision to page 214 of the Technical Specifications to delete 4.8.C.6c and to expand 4.8.C.6b to specify the range of gas concentrations required for calibrating both types of analyzers.
The attached Technical Specification 4.8.C.6b, page 214, indicates the proposed change.
The ODCM will.be revised to identify the specific gas concentrations for each type of hydrogen analyzer, upon receipt of the appropriate license amendment.
(2)
The current Technical Specification 4.iB.C.4c on page 211 requires, in part, performing an instrument check on the main stack iodine and particulate sample flow rate monitor every day.
Since the main stack sample flow rate monitor is located at the base of the main stack, it is not readily accessible.
In order to obtain access to this location, technicians must travel by vehicle to the Peach Bottom North Substation and obtain access through the security gates at the Substation.
Due to the remote location of the main stack sample flow rate monitor, it is desireable to limit the number of eccursions to the base of the main stack to once/ week.
Peach Bottom Surveillance Test ST-7.6.1.f is performed once/ week for the purpose of changing the main stack sample flow filters.
By limiting the frequency of the main stack sample flow monitor instrument check to
~
once/ week, both tasks (changing the filters and performing the instrument check) could be accomplished simultaneously.
Sample system operability is monitored by pressure switches which actuate an alarm in the main control room in the event of main stack sample flow trouble.
These switches, PS-6507 and PS-6508, will be placed in the Surveillance Test Program to be functionally tested every six months and calibrated every eighteen months and therefore compensate for the requested chang'e in the surveillance frequenc~y.
Therefore, we request that these surveillance provisions be incorporated into the Technical Specifications as indicated in the proposed changes to Spe'cifications 4.8.C.4(c) and (d) on page 211 attached.
~
Sionificant Hazards Consideration Deterfination The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether license amendments involve no significant hazards considerations by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).
One of the examples of actions involving no significant hazards' consideration is a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications.
The addition of a surveillance requirement for the main stack sample flow rate system conforms to this example.
The proposed changes involving the recombiner hydrogen analyzer calibrations are required as the result of the installation of a new type of hydrogen analyzer in addition to the existing hydrogen analyzers.
The new analyzer requires'a different type of calibration gas than the existing analyzer.
Therefore, a change to the Technical Specifications is required to allow proper calibration of both types of analyzers.
This change conforms to example vi (48 FR 14870) of actions involving no significant hazards consideration since the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria.
For these reasons, amendments requested in Licensee's Application of February 19, 1985, as amended herein, do not constitute a significant hazards consideration since they do not:
~
(1) invo1ve a significant increase in the probability or 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 Operational Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board (off-site safety review committee) have re' viewed these proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and have concluded that they do not involv'e an unreviewed safety question or a significant hazards consideration and will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
Respectfully submitted, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
/
4\\
[L2
/,
Vice Presid' ht e
I COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ss.
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA S. L. Daltroff, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company, the Applicant herein; that he has read the foregoing App 11 cation for Amendment of Facility Operating Licenses and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his l
knowledge, information and belief.
O
/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2) day
~
of I925 TlO,,
niic Notary' Pu,blic PATR lA A.' JONES Notary Publ Phita., Pnsla. Co.
- My Commission Expires Oct. 13,1986 l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that service of the foregoing Amendment was made upon the Commonwealth 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, PA 17120; all this 22nd day of August,1985.
l b.
It Eugey J. Bradley
[
t Attorney for i
Philadelphia Electric Company l
l l
I e
l 1
i