ML20211D550

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 228 & 231 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively

ML20211D550
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	08/23/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211D546	List: ML20211D542 ML20211D547 ML20211D550
References
NUDOCS 9908270075
Download: ML20211D550 (3)

Text

$A MOU h ' -- 21 UNITED STATE 5 f i*- .k j . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "t WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M)001 I l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 228 AND 231 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PECO ENERGY 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 NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated February 12,1999, as supplemented by letter dated July 8,1999, the PECO Energy Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 a'nd 3, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes .

would correct typographical and editorial errors introduced in the TSs by previous ardendments.

. The July 8,1999, letter provided clarifying information and did not change the original no significant hazards consideration determination.

I

' 2.0 EVALUATION '

The licensee states that the proposed changes are all corrections to existing typographical and editorial errors in the TSs. Each proposed change has been verified by the licensee to meet ,

' the intent of what was originally proposed by PECO Energy Company and approved by the '

~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in previously processed amendments to the TSs. The

~ licensee states that the corrections are needed to accurately depict the Site Boundary and the Exclusion Area Boundary and to clearly state the intended requirements of two surveillance requirements (SRs).

An evaluation'of the proposed changes follows:

(1) Editorial correction to the labols for the Site Boundary and Exclusion Area Boundary or, the Unit 2 and Unit 3 TS Figures 4.1-1. The labels were inadvertently reversed.

When the Unit 2 and Unit 3 TSs were converted to the Standard TSs under Amendments 210 and 214 respectively, Figure 4.1-1 incorrectly reversed the depiction of the Site Boundary and the i Exclusion Area Boundary. The licensee has determined that the error occurred during its 9908270075 990823 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P _

PDR ,

L.

7

(.-.

}

l conversion of the old TS Figure 3.8.1,." Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Release Points" to the new TS Figure 4.1-1," Site and Exclusion Area Boundaries." The evaluation for conversion to th.:

Standard TSs stated that the change to the figure was administrative only and no technical change was involved. The licensee reviewed the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, the ,

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, the NRC Safety Evaluation and 10 CFR100.3, and confirmed

- that the Exclusion Area Boundary is located approximately 2700 feet from the center of Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactors and is within the Site Boundary. By a similar review of the same documents and 10 CFR 20.1003, the licensee confirmed that the Site Boundary resides outside of the Exclusion Area and outlines the area owned by the licensee at PBAPS.

The staff finds that the proposed change corrects an editorial error. The change does not involve any physical change to plant systems, structures, or components (SSC), or the addition of new SSC. The proposed change is purely administrative, has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions; and is, therefore, acceptable.

, (2) Correction to' a note by replacing the word "on" with the word "or" in the Unit 3 TS j Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.2.5.

In limiting condition for operation in Section 3.3.1.2, there is a note that reads, "Not required to be performed until 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after WRNMS (Wide Range Neutron Monitoring System] Indicate 125E-5 % power on below." The licensee states that this is a typographical error in that the

. note should read "... power or below." The corresponding notes and discussions in the Unit 2 TSs, the Unit 2 and Unit 3 TS Bases and the Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1433) all state "... power or below." The typographical error occurred during the mbmittal of the WRNMS TS change for Unit 3 (LCR 93-18). In the original hand marked-up changes submitted l to the NRC, dated January 17,1995, the note correctly stated "... power or below." However,  !

the typed version of the note as subrnitted by the licensee to the NRC, dated September 22,  ;

1997, incorrectly stated "... power on below." The statt agrees with the licensee's determination and concludes that the existing TS SR note is rendered incorrect as a result of an error in the licensee's submittal.

The staff finds that the proposed change corrects a typographical error. The char;ge does not involve any physical change to plant SSC, or the addition of new SSC. The proposed change is purely administrative, has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions; and is, therefore, acceptable.

(3) Correction to the note above TS SR 3.8.4.1 by replacing "SR 3.8.1.9" with "SR 3.8.4.9" in the Unit 3 TS Section 3.8.4. l The licensee has determined that there is a typographical error in a note related to SR 3.8.4.1 through SR 3.8.4.9 on page 3.8-30 of the Unit 3 TSs. The note currently reads as,"SR 3.8.4.1  ;

. through SR 3.8.4.8 are app!icable only to Unit 3 DC electrical power subsystem. SR 3.8.1.9 is l applicable to the Unit 2 DC electrical power subsyster1." The reference to SR 3.8.1.9 is  !

incorrect. Reference should have been made to 3.8A.9 instead of that indicated on page l 3.8-33. The licensee states that the error is typographic. The staff notes that SR 3.8.19 relates 1 to AC electrical power sources and not to DC electrical power that the TS Section 3.8.4 addresses.' The staff agrees with the licensee's determination that reference to SR 3.8.1.9 in the note on page 3.8.30 is in error. The correct reference shouid be SR 3.8.4.9 as identified on

' page 3.8-33.

I l  :

['

L^

r::

7 i

The staff finds that the proposed change corrects a typcgraphical error. The change does not i- involve any physical change to plant SSC, or the addition of new SSC. The proposed change is purely administrative, has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions; and is, therefore, acceptable. I

~

3.0 STATE CONSULTATIO_N in accordance with the Commission's ' regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendrr ents. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

I

, Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21,51.32, and 51.35, an envirnnmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published in the Federal Reaister on August 23,

1999 (64 FR 45984). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the staff has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

I . The Commission has 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  ;

! Loperation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the l l Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the i common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. j Principal Contributor: M.Thadani ,

Date: August 23,1999 i L

i

.