ML20206L979
| ML20206L979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206L962 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608200422 | |
| Download: ML20206L979 (2) | |
Text
%*t UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
\\,,,,f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0MENTS N05.120 AND 124TO 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 DOCKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On January 14, 1986, the Philadelphia Electric Company applied for Anendment of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56. This Amendment request changes to the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Technica,1 Specifications to clarify the required spent fuel pool water level.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's current Technical Specification 3.10.C states, "Whenever irradiated fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool, the pool water level shall be maintained at or above 81 ft. above the top of the fuel." The intent of the existing specification is to establish the minimum water coverage above the fuel while it is being transported by the fuel handling equipment. However, this wording could be misinterpreted as meaning that the 8i ft. represents the minimum water coverage above the fuel while it is stored in the storage racks at the bottom of the pool. This interpretation would conflict with the actual design requirements for the pool. The actual design calls for at least 22 ft. of water above the fuel positioned in the storage racks.
In view of this, the licensee has proposed a modification to the current Technical Specifications in order to avoid any misinterpretation., Specifically, the proposed Technical Specification refers to a minimum of at least 22 ft. of water over the top of the fuel seated in the spent fuel storage pool racks.
We find that this is in conformance with the Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling. Water Reactors, NUREG-0123, Revision 3, which is 23 ft, of water above the fuel in the storage racks. However, the staff is concerned that the proposed Technical Specification does not include maintaining 81 ft. of water over the top of the fuel while it is being transported.
If this were violated, it potentially could lead to extremely high radiation doses to the workers in the spent fuel pool area.
The licensee has supplied additional information related to this matter
~
in a "IA-85-798, Responds to FOIA Request for Encls to NRC 851009 Summary of 851001 Meeting W/Util.Forwards Documents Identified in Encl App.Documents Also in Pdr.Portions of Second Document Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4 & [[CFR" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid.)|letter dated December 26, 1985]] during the course of our review for the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pool Expansion. The letter states, " Interlocks are provided on the refueling platform to prevent the fuel from being raised to a point where there would be less than 81 ft.
of water over the top of active fuel."
8608200422 860911 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
We also note that the licensee's Technical Specifications require periodic surveillance of the spent fuel pool water level. Furthermore, the spent fuel pool area has radiation monitors which are set to alarm when area radiation levels begin to exceed permissible levels.
On the basis of our review of the licensee's submittal, the additional information regarding the interlocks on the refueling platform, the Technical Specification requirements to have periodic surveillance of the water level in the spent fuel pool, and the 1:resence of radiation i
monitors in the spent fuel pool area, we conclude that the proposed Technical Specifications change is 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 l
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 has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consider-ation 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)(g). 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 Coninission'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.
I Dated: August 11, 1986 Principal Contributor: A. Chu
>