ML20137Y235
| ML20137Y235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Y224 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512100757 | |
| Download: ML20137Y235 (4) | |
Text
.
'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
wasHNfGTON. D. C. 20086 1,\\.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENOMENTS NOS. Il2 AND ll670 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES N05. DPR-44 AND DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC 5ERVICE ELECTRIC AND GA5 COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT currANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC turrANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3 00CKETS NOS. 50 277 AND 50-278 1.0 TNT"03bCTION By letter tti.d May 4,1983, and amended by letters dated November 10, 1983, and November 29, 1984, Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) made application to amend the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, to permit revisions in the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB) leak detection TSs (Sections 3.6.C and 4.6.C and Tables 3.2.E and 4.2.E).
By letter dated February 27, 1985, the Connission apnroved certain other requested changes proposed in the licensee's submittals dated May 4,1983, and November 10, 1983. This Safety Evaluation addresses the remaining open items identified in our February 27, 1985, letter to the licensee and specifically addresses the licensee's November 29, 1984, submittal.
2.0 EVALUATION Specifically, the licensee's applications requested the following: (1) a change in nomenclature from " Air Sampling System" to "Drywell Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor" to clarify the parameter being monitored; (2) elimination of Table 3.2.E (instrumentation That Monitors Drywell Leak Detection) to remove redundancy in the TSs; (3) a change in limiting i
condition for operation (LCO) requirements from a 7-day to a 30-day LCO revised Section 3.6.C.3; and (grab sample surveillance requirements in the together with the addition of
- 4) revisions to TS Bases supporting these j
changes. The November 29, 1984 letter also withdraws certain requests' I
involving the proposed deletion of specific testing and surveillance j
' requirements concerning the Drywell Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor Systems.
2.1.1 Nomenclature Change The licensee has changed *.he name of the system measuring airborne radioactivi-ty in the primary containment from " Air Sampling System" to "Drywell 1
j Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor" in order to relate to the parameter being i
monitored. We find this acceptable since the new name covers the same j
devices as the clu one, the radioactive noble gas monitor, the iodine-j monitoring system and the particulate monitoring system.
4 8512100757 851119 ADOCK050g27 l
DR w
- 2.1.2 Table 4.2.E, " Minimum Test and Calibration Frequency for Drywell Leak Detection" The licensee has also changed the nomenclature in Table 4.2.E in accordance with the name change noted above in item 2.1.1, We find this acceptable.
2.2 Elimination of Table 3.2.E (Instrumentation That Monilors Drywell Leak Detection)
The licensee has proposed certain revisions to Section 3.6.C (refer to items 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 below) pertaining to the operability requirements of the Drywell Leak Detection Systems (i.e., the Drywell Sump Collection and Flow Monitoring System and the Drywell Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor). Table 3.2.E (Instrumentation That Monitors *Drywell Leak Detection) also specifies operability requirements for the same systems. The licensee proposes that Table 3.2.E be deleted because the proposed changes to Section 3.6.C will now incorporate all NRC staff approved operability requirements. We concur with the licensee's proposed change and conclude that this deletion simply 1
eliminates a redundant section from the Peach Bottom TSs (Table 3.2.E) and, therefore, would not change the operability requirements for the Drywell Leak Detection Systems. We, therefore, find this change acceptable.
2.3.1 Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO)
Technical Specification 3.6.C.3 The present second paragraph of LCO 3.6.C.2 concerning the air sampling system has been modified and changed to LCO 3.6.C.3.
Another modification consists of a change in name to Drywell Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor (DARM) and to indicate that reactor power operation is permitted for up to 30 i
days in the event the DARM is inoperable, in lieu of seven days previously allowed for inoperability of the air sampling system. However, the new specification has added grab sampling of the containment atmosphere and analysis thereof at least once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> while the DARM is inoperable.
We find this acceptable because it conforms with the requirements of the LCO (3.4.3.1) for Reactor Coolant System Leakage in the Standard Technical Specifications for Boiling Water Reactors (NUREG-0123, Rev. 3).
2.3.2 Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO)
Technical Specifications 3.6.C.4 This proposed revision would simply change the old LCO 3.6.C.3 to LCO 3.6.C.4, retaining it in its entirety, and adding a reference to LCO 3.6.C.3.
This new LCO states that if excessive leakage is found beyond allowable limits shown in LCO 3.6.C.1 or that in the loss of Sump Collection and Flow Monitorinn System inoperability in excess of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (LCO 3.6.C.2) or in the event of DARM inoperability in excess of 30 days, that the plant be in hot shutdcwn within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> there-after. We find this acceptable.
l
. 2.4.1 Bases, Page 93, Paragraph 3 Paragraph 3 has been modified to change the name of the air sampling system to Drywell Atmosphere Radioactivity Monitor (DARM) and to indicate that the DARM will provide information to the reactor coolant leakage detection (primary containment sump collection and flow monitoring) system. The licensee has also deleted the reference to the alarm unit in each sump flow integrator which is set to annunciate when the limiting rates of flow set by Technical Specification 3.6.C are exceeded. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), in Section 4.10.3.2.IV, notes that each sump (drywell floor drain for unidentified flow, drywell equipment drain sump for identified leakage) has a 500 gallon capacity with two pumps each capable of pumping 50 gpm. The second pump is initiated if the pump water level continues to rise above a certain point at which time an alarm is sounded. The FSAR notes, further, that a flow integrator meters the discharge rate from each sump. An operator monitors the discharge every four hours and verifies that floor drain flow has not exceeded 5 gpm, that floor drain plus equipment drain sump flow has not exceeded 25 gpm, that the increase in floor drain sump flow is less than 2 gpm, and that floor drain leakage was not doubled since the previous reading. A plant shutdown is initiated if any of these limits are excceded.
We find this acceptable.
2.4.2 Bases, Page 156a A paragraph has been added, noting that the DARM is intended to provide information in support of that provided by the reactor coolant leakage monitoring system (sump collection and flow monitoring system), stating "There is no direct correlation between the radioactivity monitor indication and leakage rate.... While the radioactivity monitors will not quantify primary coolant leakage, they would provide an early warning of a major leak especially if there is a significant difference in the radioactivity level between the leakage source and drywell background."
We find the licensee's proposed changes to the Bases section acceptable.
2.5 Redistribution of Material (Section 4.6.C)
The second paragraph of present surveillance requirement 4.6.C.1 pertains to checking the air sampling system and recording reactor coolant system leakage as measured by the air sampling system at least once per day. This paragraph has been deleted and these requirements have been redistributed into 3 new section(4.6.C.2). We find this change acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents.
that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission
s
. has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
November 19, 1985 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
N. Wagner and G. Gears 4
i
--,-..----c-
--