ML20138J642
| ML20138J642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J640 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512170595 | |
| Download: ML20138J642 (3) | |
Text
-,
. $2 KtC o
UNITED STATES g
3, g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
wasmwoTow, p. c. 2oses
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS N05.115 AND119 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-44 AND DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3 00CKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, in its submittal dated February 19, 1985, as amended by letter dated August 22, 1985, has proposed certain modifications to the Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed changes are to eliminate an error in present TS requirements relating to radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation and to modify gaseous effluent monitoring TSs to optimize operation of certain equipment. The proposed changes implement technical changes and clarifications that reflect current plant configuration in line with NUREG-0473, " Standard Radiological Technical Specifications for BWRs," Revision 2, February 1,1980.
2.0 EVALUATION Three changes to the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETSi, issued August 3,1984, as Amendments Nos.102 and 104 to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, respectively, are proposed in this submittal.
l (1) The current wording of TS Section 4.8.B.3.a.2 (Liquid Radwaste Effluents j
-Surveillance Recuirements) requires, in part, that a functional test be performed once/ month to demonstrate that a downscale failure of the radwaste liquid effluent radiation monitor will automatically isolate the radwaste discharge valve and actuate the downscale failure alann in the control room. The licensee has stated that the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor has two failure modes as follows: a downscale failure and a INOP (TNOPERABLE) failure. A downscale failure occurs when the gross activity detected by the monitor decreases below a pre-set value. The INOP failure occurs when any one of the following conditions exists:
(1) low voltage to the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor exists, (2) radwaste liquid affluent rad monitor mode switch is not in the " operate" position, or (3) removal of any one of the plug-in modules in the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor.
Either failure mode (downscale or INOP) would actuate a comon downscale/INOP alarm in the control room.
l However, the licensee. has indicated that the design of the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor does not pennit the automatic isolation on a l
downscale failure of the radwaste discharge valve. Upon actuation of 8512170595 851210 PDR ADOCK 0500C277-P PDRs
. the common downscale/INOP alarm in the control room, the radwaste liquid effluent rad monitor front panel lights are checked to determine which failure mode (downscale or-INOP) actuated the alarm.
If the TNOP light on the monitor front panel is lit, the radwaste discharge valve is verified to be closed and'an investigation is initiated to detemine the cause of the INOP failure.
If the downscale light on the monitor front panel is lit, an investigation is initiated to detemine the cause of the downscale failure. The radwaste discharge valve is not verified to be closed because the Peach Bottom design does not permit the automatic isolation of this valve on a downscale failure. The licensee has requested that the current TSs be revised to reflect these current design features. The word "downscale" in TS Section 4.8.B.3a.2 would be changed to "INOP".
The licensee has further stated that the proposed change is justified because a downscale alam is provided to alert the operator to the downscale condition and TS Section 3.8.B.3.d permits liquid radwaste releases to continue when the liquid rad monitor experiences a failure provided that prior to each release, two independent liquid effluent samples are analyzed and two technically qualified members of the facility staff independently verify release rate calculations and discharge line valving.
The staff has reviewed the proposed wording change and finds that this substitution of wording is appropriate and conforms to the current plant configuration as well as conforming to the guidance provided by the staff in NUREG-0473. Therefore, we find that the above described change is acceptable.
(2) The licensee proposes to delete Section 4.8.C.6.c (Gaseous Effluents -
Hydrogen Analyzers) which references, by error, only the older type recombiner hydrogen analyzers which were supplemented by newer helium-icmune hydroyn analyzers prior to the effective date of the RETS. In place of Section 4.8.C.6.c, the licensee proposes to modify Section 4.8.C.6.b to include a range of gas concentrations required for calibrating both the older type recombiner hydrogen analyzers as well as the newer helium-immune analyzers. The specific gas concentrations for each instrument type would be placed in The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM).by reference.
The surveillance calibration requirements currently addressed in Section 4.8.C.6.c would be placed in the revised Section 4.8.C.6.b by the proposed change.
In addition, the newer helium-immune hydrogen analyzers calibration requirements, which by error, are not referenced in the current TSs, would now be referenced also in the revised Section 4.8.C.6.c.
The specific gas concentrations needed for the calibration of each instrument type would be contained in the ODCM by reference. The staff in its guidance (NUREG-0473) permitted the placement of certain specific technical data in the ODCM by reference. The licensee's proposed placement of the specific gas calibration concentrations in the ODCM is in accordance with the staff's quidance. Therefore, we conclude l
-,m
_-..,..-_,_.,.7_
r s
i
. that the proposed change is acceptable because it does not affect existing TS requirements, and would add additional surveillance requirements, inadvertently omitted in a previous amendment.
(3) Upon implementation of the RETS, the licensee found that the daily instrument check of the main stack flow rate monitor was difficult because of the relative inaccessibility of the base of the main stack.
The licensee proposes to replace this daily " physical" instrument check with a pressure-sensitive sample-system-operability monitor that would alarm in the main control room in the event of main stack sample flow trouble.
In turn, the " physical" instrument check would be reduced to once a week. These proposed changes provide increased conservatism for this instrument surveillance, and we therefore find these changes acceptable.
In conclusion, we find that the above changes, as proposed, meet the intent of the NRC staff's model RETS for BWRs (NUREG-0473, Revision 2, February 1, i
1980) and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
1 These amendments involve changes in surveillance requirements. 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 Commission 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 1
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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public 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: December 10, 1985 Principal Contributor:
W. Meinke 4
f i
-.. - - -