ML20247E975
| ML20247E975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247E966 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904030281 | |
| Download: ML20247E975 (3) | |
Text
.
o
~
UNITED STATES
-[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 141 AND 143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 l
J PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY I
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY l
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 June 12, 1987 as amended on February 7, 1989, Philadelphia Electric Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
The amendments are related to implementation of the ATWS Rule (10 CFR 50.62 " Requirements for Reduction of Risk from Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) Events for Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants")
which requires improvements to reduce the likelihood of a failure to shutdown the reactor following anticipated transients and to mitigate the consequences of an ATWS event. The requirements for a boiling water reactor are to install an Alternate Rod Injection (ARI) system, a Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) and to trip the reactor coolant recirculation pumps (RPT) automatically under conditions of an ATWS. The licensee has provided information on the implementation of the ARI and RPT portions of the rule and the staff has concluded, in a safety evaluation report published on December 21, 1988, that the ARI and RPT designs are in compliance with the rule. The SLCS design was previously addressed by modifications to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Units 2 and 3 in amendments numbered 122 and 126, respectively, on June 2, 1987. This amendment complements the staff's safety evaluation on the design of ARI and RPT by establishing revised TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) l and Surveillance Requirements (SR) for RPT and by adding LCO's and SR's for ARI.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's initial submittal on TS for RPT and ARI dated June 12, 1987 was followed by the staff's safety evaluation report on the JPT and ARI design dated December 21, 1988, wherein the staff identified two concerns l
with the proposed TS. The licensee's subsequent proposed revision to the TS dated February 7,1989 has resolved these two concerns. The licensee has resolved the first concern by agreeing to a surveillance test 8904030281 890322 ADOCK05oog{7 PDR P
0 A
- frequency of once per quarter for the instrument channel and the actuation logic functional test. The licensee has resolved the second concern by clarifying its terminology for the " minimum number of operable channels per trip system."
The specific changes to the TS consist of (a) revising of sections 3.2.G, 4.2.G. Tables 3.2.G and 4.2.G and the BASES to make them applicable to both RPT and ARI. Therefore the requirements of these sections will now apply both the RPT and ARI which rely on common sensors and employ the same actuation logic. (b) revising the ACTION statements of Table 3.2.G to reflect the actuation logic of RPT and ARI, (c) adding limiting periods within which the ACTIONS must be taken, revising the surveillance frequency in Table 4.2.G for instrument channel and logic functional tests to once/ quarter, and adding a requirement to place an inoperable trip system in the tripped condition, (d) revisions of an administrative nature in the titles of " instrument functional check" to " instrument functional test," and "once/ refueling cycle" to "once/ operating cycle" and addition of the functional test definition in Table 4.2.G to achieve consistency with definitions included within the TS and with practices utilized on other related TS tables.
The staff provided guidance in its September 21, 1988 letter regarding the appropriate contents for these TS. The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS and concludes that they meet the guidance and will provided enhanced controls on the operation and surveillance of the RPT and ARI systems and are therefore acceptable.
The staff also notes, as stated in its letter of December 21, 1988, that it is preparing a generic letter regirding implementation of TS for ATWS. Should the result of developing this generic guidance require any revision of these TS now being issued for the Peach Bottom plant, then such revisions will be addressed in a manner which is consistent with the action required for other similarly designed BWR's.
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 i
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance I
requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that lay be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in inuividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 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 finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet I
the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR I
51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact l
statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
o j,>o l
N 4.0. CONCLUSION The Commission made a pr6 posed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 7313) on February 17, 1989 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 considerations 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 manner, and 1
(21 such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to
{
the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor:
H. Li and R. Martin Dated: March 22, 1989
.