ML20147C157
| ML20147C157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C140 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803030020 | |
| Download: ML20147C157 (4) | |
Text
_
ge nog'o
!(
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASmNGTON, D. C. 20555
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 127 AND 130 TO FACILITY OPERATINF, LICENSE NOS. OPR-44 and OPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
~ ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. 50-277 AND 50-27R
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ry letter dated August 6, 1981 as supolemented on April 2, 1984 December 2, 1985, October 29, 1986 and July 7, 1987, Philadelphia Electric Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. OPR-44 and OPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. ? and 3.
The amendments in the August 6, 1981 submittal were in the areas of (1)
Methods of verifying drywell-suppression chamber vacuum breaker closure, (2) the operability of radiation monitors. (3) the listino of safety related shock suppressors and (4) several changes of an administrative nature to correct errors, to establish consistency and for editorial clarity. Bv letter dated April 2, 1984 the licensee withdrew the changes in parts (P) and (3) above from the scope of this application. Based on further interactions with NRC staff the licensee further amended the application bv letters dated December 2, 1985, October 29, 1986 and July 7, 1987.
The resulting agenda of charges proposed by the licensee in these documents which are acted upon in this amendment are as follows:
(a) From the August 6,1981 application; correction of the spelling of the word "greater" on page 128; and the vacuum breaker technical specifications, as amended by the later submittals, on page 171 of the Appendix A Technical Specifications. The licensee's August 6, 1981 submittal also proposed a clarification of the reporting period for submission of a written report on page 51 of the Environmental Technical $pecifications in Appendix R to the facility licenses.
(b) The December 2, 19R5 submittal proposed revisions in the vacuum breaker specifications in 3.7. A.4.b on pages 170 and 171; corrected the spelling of "except" in 3.7.A.3.a on page 170; deleted the redundant word "valve" from the tem "vacuum breaker valve" in 4.7. A.4.b and c on page 170; deleted the extraneous words "determined to be" from 3.7.A.4.c on page 171; changed the word "will" to "shall" in 3.7. A.4.d on page 171; clarified the event for conducting the P
P
-?-
subject test in 4.7.A.a.d as a "refueling outage" versus the prior term "refueling"; deleted an obsolete and extraneous reference to the initial startup test program and demonstration of electrical output in 3.7.A.5 and added oage 171a to accommodate the exnansion of the specification 3.7. A text.
(c) The October 29, 1986 submittal revised the specification 3.7.A.4.b requirenmnt to initiate testing within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to a requirement to perform testing within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; consolidated the soecification 3.7.A.4.b requirement for periodic testing following initial detection of a "not fully seated" position to include the previous 15 day and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> tests based on whether indication exists that the vacuum breaker is fully seated and eliminated the need for a page 171a.
(d) The July 7, 1987 submittal egain revised the specification 3.7.A.4.b requirement on page 170 back to the form it had in the December 2, 1985 submittal. This change was made in response to the staff's letter dated April 28, 1987.
The NRC staff has published notice of consideration of this amendment in the Federal Register on June 20, 1984 (49 FR 25369) and on January 29, 1986 (51 FR 3716). Those notices reflected the August 6, 1981 and December 2,1985 submittals. The changes introduced by the October 29, 1986 and July 7, 1987 submittals are within the scope of these notices since the wording of the more significant item, the 3.7. A.4.b testing requirement on page 170, has reverted to the wording for this item in the December ?,1985 submittal and the provision allowing testing to be extended from once per 15 days to a monthly interval under certain conditions has been deleted.
I
?.0 EVALUATION l
By letter dated December 2,1985, the licensee revised their earlier l
propesal (August 6,1981) for a change in TS 3.7 A.4.b relating to l
Drywell-pressure Suporession Chamber Vacuum Breakers (DSYB). The licensee stated that the revised proposal reflected staff's suggestions made during l
a meeting on February 26, 1985. Specifically, the revised proposal stated that the DSVBs would be considered fully closed even though the "not fully seated" position indication is shown, provided that a leak test is initiated within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of such detection. This test should confirm that the bypass area between the drywell and the suppression chamber is less than or equivalent to a one-inch diameter hole. Additionally, the revised proposal identified the frequency of followup confirmatory periodic leak tests should a "not fully seated" position indication exist for any DSVB.
Based on review of the revised proposal, the staff by telephona conversation on February 5,1986, suggested some modifications to the proposed change in the area of follow-up periodic leak tests.
In response, the licensee provided a submittal dated October 29, 1986 and l
l l
l
. subsequently revised it by a submittal dated July 7,1987.
In summary, the licensee has replaced the TS 3.7. A provision permitting continuous operation with one DSVR in the position between "fully closed" and "3 degrees open" with (a) a reouirement for initiation of a bypass area leakage test within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of detection of a "not fully seated" position indication (December 2, 1985 ard July 7, 1987 submittals), and (b) additional follow-up periodic leak tests to ensure that (1) testing is performed within 24 hnurs following DSYB exercising required by surveillance requirement 4.7. A.4.a or b and (2) the time interval between any two consecutive tests, including the initial test, is not to exceed 15 days.
The staff has reviewed the licensae's proposed changes to Peach Rotton Units 2 and 3 TS 3.7.A.4.b as given in the above submittals and the associated justification. Rased on the review, the staff finds the proposed approach for considering the DSYBs to be "fully seated," i.e.,
confirming that the bypass area is less than or equal to the area corresponding to a one-inch diameter hole by leak tests, to be acceptable.
This is because, the proposed approach assures that the bypass leakage following an accident would be less than the maximum allowable bypass leakage. Additionally, the staff finds that the proposed change will allow the licensee greater operational flexibility than what is currently available in the sanse that with the change, more than one DSVB can be "not fully seated" as shown by the corresponding position indications.
However, acceptance is based on the initial and periodic leak tests confirming that the limiting value for the byoass area mentioned above is not exceeded. The staff also finds that tha proposed initial and periodic confirmation leak tests provide reasonable assurance that the DSYBs will not be open in excess of the limiting bypass area, when they are required to remain closed.
Rased on the above, the staff concludes that the licensee's proposed changes to TS 3.7. A 4.b, 3.7 A.4.c. 3.7. A.4.d, 4.7. A.4.b, e and d for Peach Rottom, Units 2 and 3, are acceptable. Acceptance is based, particularly, on the staff's finding that with the proposed change, the maximum bypass leakage following an accident should be less than the maximum allowable bypass leakage. The staff further finds the minor changes to TS 3.7.A, 4.7.A on TS pages 170 and 171, the change on page 198 and the changa on page 51 of the Appendix 8 TS serve to correct errors, to establish consistency, to provide editorial clarity and do not change the intent of the TS. These changes are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendrents involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the tvens, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no sionificant increase in individual or
f 4
4 cumulative occupational radiation expnsure. The Commission has previousiv issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and thera has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)gibility criteria for (9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.?2(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (49 FR 25369) on June 20, 1984 and (51 FR 3716) on January 29, 1986 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 concluded, based on the c6nsiderations discussed above, that:
(11 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed nanner, and (2) tuch activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the anendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Chandrasekaran Deted: February 18, 1988 e
i f
i