ML20205K741

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 227 & 230 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively

ML20205K741
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/07/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205K734	List: ML20205K732 ML20205K737 ML20205K741
References
NUDOCS 9904130363
Download: ML20205K741 (2)

Text

. .

l

. go me L ye 4 UNITED STATES f* j *'

.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o 's WASHINGTON, D.c. 205554X m

%...../ ,

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQN RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.227 AND 230 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 4,1998, as revised by a letter dated September 29,1998, the PECO l Energy Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revise the TSs to modify TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) for all secondary 1 containment doors as set forth in Revision 1 of TS task force (TSTF) 18 that was approved by the staff on October 2,1998. The September 29,1908, letter provided clarifying information <

within the scope of the initial Federal Reaister notice that did not change the initial propcsed I no significant hatards consideration determination. l 2.0 EVALUATION The current TSSRs for the secondary containment doors, SR 3.6.4.1.2, require verification that "each secondary containment access door is closed, except when the access opening is being used for entry and exit, then at least one door shall be closed." This SR is in the Boiling l Water Reactor (BWR) 4 Standard Technical Specification. The licensee states that l maintenance of the secondary containment doors currently requires declaring the secondary  !

containment inoperable and entering a 4-hour action statement, and that failure to complete j maintenance within the 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> would require the plant to be in mode 3 (hot shutdown) within  !

12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, and mode 4 (cold shutdown) within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. I 1

On October 2,1998,the NRC staff approved TSTF 18, Revision 1, which revised the TSSR 3.6.4.1.2 concerning Secondarv Containment Doors and the Bases sectiun of the TS. ]

Now, TS SR 3.6.4.1.2 reads as follows: i

" Verify one secondary containment access door in each access opening is closed. The frequency is every 31 days" l

9904130363 PDR 990407 ADOCK 05000277 i P ppg l

l l The TSTF 18 revised Bases section of the TS reads as follows:

"An access opening contains one inner and one outer door in some cases, secondary I containment access openings are shared such that a secondary containment barrier I

may have multiple inner or multiple outer doors. The intent is to not breach the secondary containment at any time when secondary containment is required. This is achieved by maintaining the inner or outer portion of the barrier closed at all times.

However, all secondary containment access doors are normally kept closed, except when the access opening is being used for entry and exit or when maintenance is being )

performed on an access opening."

l In its letter dated September 29,1998, the licensee requested changes to the TSs of the PBAPS Units 2 and 3, to be consistent with the approved TSTF 18, Revision 1. The staff has reviewed the secondary containment design for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, and finds that it satifies the criterion that the secondary containment will not be breached as identified within TSTF 18, j Revision 1. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to the TSs acceptable.

3.0 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.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change the surveillance requsments. 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 proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 38202).

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: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 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 A. Gill Date: April 7,1999