ML20147B667
| ML20147B667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147B664 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803020158 | |
| Download: ML20147B667 (3) | |
Text
.
/paaseg%,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
j W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVAlllATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 128 AND 131 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPP-4a and DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY nELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACP BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-977 AND 50-278 1.0 INTRODilCTION By letter dated October 24, 1986, Philadelphia Electric Company requested an atendrect to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and OPR-56 for Peach ?c"cr Itcrit Power Station, Urit hos. 2 and 3.
By letter dated January ??,1988 the licensee provided schedular comitments for the implementation of the associated modifications. The amendments would brir.g the range of the drywell temperature instrumentation into conformance Wth W mtr er.cattor.: ef Pegulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3.
(Instrumentation for light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant e d envirers During and Following an Accident).
Degulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, recomends instrumentation with a renr!a n' 40 to 440*F to rcriter the drywell atmosphare temperature,
%e licensee requested that the Peach Bottom Technical Soecifications be raviced to bring the range of a druell temperature indicator and a drywell temperature recorder into confomance with the reconenendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97 by changing the range of the drywell temperature instruments to 40 to 440*F. Additional chances were also requested to clarify Table 3.2.F and to correct an error in Table 3..c.F.
Currently, drywell terperature is monitored in the control room via a pressure /terperature recorder and a multi-point temperature indicator.
The temperature range of the pressura/tenperature recorder is 0 to 240*F and the range of the temperature indicator is -150 to +300*F.
By letter dated January 16, 1984, from S. L. Daltroff, Philadelphia Electric i
Compary, to n. c. Fi%r. hut, NRC, the licensee comitted to revising the range of there c'rywell temperature instruments to 40 to 440'F in order to satisfy the recom,endations of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee intends to replace the pressure / temperature recorder with a j
new recorder which will rrevide a temperature range of 40 to 440'F. The licensee intends to modify tM temperature indicator to meet the range 8803020158 880222 PDR ADOCK 05000277 p
I 4 requirenent by installing a linearizer prcoran board and a thermocouple signal conditioner board which will give this device a range of -300 to
+750'F.
These boards are the only ones available from the manufacturer which will satisfy the range recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
The instrument accuracy for the proposed range of the temperature indicator will be 2.625'F ( 0.25% full scale). The instrument accuracy i
of the temperature indicator as currently installed is 1.125*F.
The current Technical Specification Table 3.7.F specifies a rance of 0 to 400*F for the dep ell temperature indicator and recorder. As a result of the range change modification discussed above, the licensee has requested that the range of the drywell temperature devices listed in Table 3.2.F be chanced to 40 to 440*F. Further, because the new range of the temperature indicator would not he identical to the proposed rance in Table 3.?.F. the licensee is planning to add a clarifyinq note (Note 17) j to Technical Specification page 78a to indicate that the new range of the tencerature indicator (-300 to +750'F) is acceptable because it encom-passes the proposed range of 40 to 440'F. The licensee plans for these changes to become effective upon completion of the modification to each device.
In order to improve the clarity of Table 3.2.F. the licensee plans to add
{
l two new columns to Table 3.2.F.
One of the new columns would list the instrunants in the table by their identification numbers. Currently, the identification of instruments is inferred by using the type of indication and rance for each paraneter specified in the table. The addition of this column would make it easier to ensure that the minimum number of instrument channels are operable as specifitJ in the table. The other new column would provide a number (1 thru 18) for each of the eighteen itens identified in Table 3.2 F.
The addition of this colunn would provide an easy reference method for the parameters in the table.
The licensee has identified an error in Table 3.P.F involving the range of the suppression chanber water level (narrow range) instrumants, Currently, the instrument range for this parameter is specified in Table i
3.2.F as 0 to 2 feet. in actuality, the installed range of these instruments is 13.7 to 15.7 feet. (Normal suppression chamber water level is naintained at 14.6 to 14.9 feet). The licensee is requesting that the required range of the suppression chamber water level instruments specified in Table 3.2.F be changed from 0 to 2 feet to 13.7 to 15.7 feet.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that tha proposed hardware changes to the drywell temperature instrumentation are consistent with the criteria identified in Regulatory Guide 1.97 Rev. 3.
The staff concludes that the charoes to Technical Sper ifications Table 3 ?.F reflect the hardware modification, help to clar'fy the Technical Specifications and correct an error. Therefore, % e proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable.
4 e
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the instellation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments irvolve 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 occupitional radiation exoosure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)gibility criteria for finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli (9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Conmission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 4416) en February 11, 1987 and consulted with the State of Pennsylvania. No public comments were received and the State of Pennsylvania did not have any comments.
The staff has enneluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health anc 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the corron defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
B. Marcus Dated: February 22, 1988
. _ -.