ML20217M800

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 219 & 222 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively

ML20217M800
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	08/19/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20217M774	List: ML20217M770 ML20217M796 ML20217M800
References
NUDOCS 9708250306
Download: ML20217M800 (3)

Text

,, .. . I o cro og ye 4 UNITED STATES

j. #

}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30u64001

\ . . . . . /'

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED T.Q. AMENDMENT N05. 219 AND 222 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PICQcENERGYCQl28M r

PUBllC.St1VICE ElfCTRIC AhD.__ GAS _ COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 6TLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 QQCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bv letter dated March 31, 1997, as supplemented by a June 25, 1997, letter, I

thePECOEnergyCom)any(PECOEnergy,thelicensee)submittedarequestfor changes to the Pesc1 Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs). The June 25, 1997, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial ?roposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The proposed c1anges pertain to TS surveillance requirement (SR) 3,3.1.1.12. SR 3,3.1.1.19, Table 3.3.1.1-1 and BASES on Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation. These changes would extend the Aver 69e Power Range Monitor (APRM) flow bias instrumentation surveillance interval from 18 months to 24 months. At present, the Peach Bottom Units have a 24-month refueling cycle, while the current Peach Bottom TSs call for on-line APRM flow bias instrumentation calibration at 18-month intervals. This results in plant operators having to place the plant in a half-scram condition during plant operation.

In a July 15, 1993, NRC memo to Charles L. Miller from J. Wermiel indicated that similar Peach Botto'n TS changes to increase the surveillance interval for isolation instrumentation, alternate rod insertion / recirculation pump trip, containment systems and primary system boundary, emergency core cooling system,-electrical group isolation, monitoring group, reactor prntection system, radiation / effluent monitoring, and control rod block instrumentation were in line with the recommendations of Generic letter (GL) 91-04. The original APRM flow bias instrumentation was not capable of supporting a 24-month calibration interval based on historical surveillance records as nated in GL 91-04. Recently, however, this equipment was replaced with a Moore Mycro 352 controller which is more accurate and reliable than the original equipment. The Noore Mycro 352 controllers were first used in the reactor feedpump control in 1991 and in High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCl), Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC), and Containment Air Dilution systems since 1994.

9708250306 970819 DR ADOCK 0500 2 7

e *o ,

l 2.0 EVALVATI0tf The licensee stated that the APRM flow bias scram provides additional margin to the clamped high flux scram set)oint and that an evaluation related to Amendment No. 216 concluded that tie flow bias scram does not play a role in any Peach Bottom safety analysis. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report accident and transient enalyses do not take credit for the ficw bias function in the mitigation of any accidents or transients and the APRM clamped high neutron flux scram is not impacted by the proposed changes.

Further, the APRM clamped high neutron flux scram will be automatically enforced regardless of the status or accuracy of the APRM flow bias circuitry.

The licensee also stated that because the APRM flow bias instrumentation does not perform a function credited in any cccident or transient analysis, the guidance of GL 91-04 does not apply.

The licensee conducted a historical review of the Moore Mycro 352 controllers operated on a 2brionth calibration interval at Beach Bottom and observed that 1

no calibration was required on any of the devices. The licensee also reviewed the calibration history of the Moore current-to-voltage converters used to interface the Moore Mycro 352 controllers to the APRM channels. These converters are similar to the converters used in the HPCI and RCIC systems.

with the e!,ception that the HPCI and RCIC converters are current-to-current with an additional current driver in their output stage. A review of 13 surveillance records on the IIPCI and RCIC systems (with 24-month surveillance specified intervals)inindicated tolerances all cases.that the as-found data was within the j

3.0

SUMMARY

The staff has reviewed the licensee's justification for the proposed APRM flow bias instrumentation surveillance interval change from 18 months to 24 months and concludes that this change will not affect plant safety because of the reliable performance of the instrumentation and is, therefore, acceptable.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a

m ;,g, l 1 l

proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding i

(62 FR 24988). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded based on the considerations discussed above, that:

public w(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the ill not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's r,eg(2) ulations,such and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: S. Mazumdar Date: August 19, 1997 3

!