ML070520606
| ML070520606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2007 |
| From: | Richard Ennis NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-2 |
| To: | Levis W Public Service Enterprise Group |
| Ennis R, NRR/DORL, 415-1420 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML070530283 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD1490, TAC MD1491 | |
| Download: ML070520606 (14) | |
Text
March 19, 2007 Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE: POWER RANGE NEUTRON FLUX HIGH NEGATIVE RATE TRIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDITORIAL CHANGES (TAC NOS. MD1490 AND MD1491)
Dear Mr. Levis:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 278 and 261 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to your application dated May 1, 2006.
The amendments eliminate the requirement for a power range neutron flux high negative rate trip and delete the references to this trip in Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 TS Table 2.2-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, TS Table 3.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, TS Table 3.3-2, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Response Times, and TS Table 4.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements. The amendments also incorporate administrative and editorial changes to correct miscellaneous errors in the TSs for Salem Units Nos. 1 and 2.
A copy of our safety evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/ra/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 278 to License No. DPR-70
- 2. Amendment No. 261 to License No. DPR-75
- 3. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page
March 19, 2007 Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE: POWER RANGE NEUTRON FLUX HIGH NEGATIVE RATE TRIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDITORIAL CHANGES (TAC NOS. MD1490 AND MD1491)
Dear Mr. Levis:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 278 and 261 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to your application dated May 1, 2006.
The amendments eliminate the requirement for a power range neutron flux high negative rate trip and delete the references to this trip in Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 TS Table 2.2-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, TS Table 3.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, TS Table 3.3-2, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Response Times, and TS Table 4.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements. The amendments also incorporate administrative and editorial changes to correct miscellaneous errors in the TSs for Salem Units Nos. 1 and 2.
A copy of our safety evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/ra/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 278 to License No. DPR-70
- 2. Amendment No. 261 to License No. DPR-75
- 3. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RidsOgcRp LPL1-2 R/F RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsNrrDirsltsb RidsNrrLASLittle RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsNrrPMREnnis GHill (2), OIS RidsNrrDorlDPR SSun Package Accession No.: ML070530283 Amendment Accession No: ML070520606 TS Accession No.: ML070810419 (amendment 278/unit 1); ML070810420 (amendment 261/unit 2)
OFFICE LPL1-2/PM LPL1-2/LA SRXB/BC OGC LPL1-2/BC NAME REnnis SLittle GCranston SHamrick HChernoff DATE 3/14/07 3/15/07 3/1/07 3/8/07 3/19/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Dennis Winchester Vice President - Nuclear Assessment PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Thomas P. Joyce Site Vice President - Salem PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. George H. Gellrich Plant Support Manager PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Carl J. Fricker Plant Manager - Salem PSEG Nuclear - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. James Mallon Manager - Licensing 200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. Steven Mannon Manager - Regulatory Assurance P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire PSEG Nuclear - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Township Clerk Lower Alloways Creek Township Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Paul Bauldauf, P.E., Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Mr. Brian Beam Board of Public Utilities 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-272 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 278 License No. DPR-70 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf of itself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees) dated May 1, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance: (I) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2)
Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No., are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ra/
Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: March 19, 2007
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 278 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 DOCKET NO. 50-272 Replace the following page of Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
Remove Insert Page 4 Page 4 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
Remove Insert XII XII 2-5 2-5 3/4 2-6 3/4 2-6 3/4 3-2 3/4 3-2 3/4 3-9 3/4 3-9 3/4 3-11 3/4 3-11 6-21 6-21
PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-311 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 261 License No. DPR-75 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf of itself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees) dated May 1, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance: (I) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2)
Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No., are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ra/
Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: March 19, 2007
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 261 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 DOCKET NO. 50-311 Replace the following page of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
Remove Insert Page 4 Page 4 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
Remove Insert 2-5 2-5 3/4 2-6 3/4 2-6 3/4 3-2 3/4 3-2 3/4 3-9 3/4 3-9 3/4 3-11 3/4 3-11 3/4 9-1 3/4 9-1
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 278 AND 261 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 1, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061300620), PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed amendments would eliminate the requirement for a power range neutron flux high negative rate trip and delete the references to this trip in Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 TS Table 2.2-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, TS Table 3.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, TS Table 3.3-2, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Response Times, and TS Table 4.3-1, ?Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements. The amendments would also incorporate administrative and editorial changes to correct miscellaneous errors in the TSs for Salem Units Nos. 1 and 2.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs or the Commissions) regulatory requirements related to the content of the TSs are set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.36, Technical specifications. This regulation requires that the TSs include items in five specific categories. These categories include (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings, (2) limiting conditions for operation (LCOs),
(3) surveillance requirements (SRs), (4) design features, and (5) administrative controls.
However, the regulation does not specify the particular TSs to be included in a plants TSs.
Additionally, 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) sets forth four criteria to be used in determining whether an LCO is required to be included in TSs. These criteria are:
Criterion 1 - Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB);
Criterion 2 - A process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident (DBA) or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; Criterion 3 - A structure, system or component (SSC) that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a DBA or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; and Criterion 4 - An SSC which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
General Design Criterion (GDC) 10, Reactor Design, in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 states that the reactor core and associated coolant, control and protection system be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs).
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Power Range Neutron Flux High Negative Rate Trip Function The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function was designed as part of the reactor protection system (RPS) to mitigate the consequences of one or more dropped rod cluster control assemblies (RCCAs) event. The dropped RCCAs event is an AOO, and is caused by a single electrical or mechanical failure that results in any number and combination of RCCAs from the same group of a given bank to drop to the bottom of the core. The resulting negative reactivity insertion causes nuclear power to quickly decrease and core radial peaking factor to increase. The reduced power and continued steam supply to the turbine cause the reactor coolant temperature to decrease. In the manual control mode, the positive reactivity feedback causes the reactor power to rise to initial power level at a reduced reactor vessel inlet temperature with no power overshoot. In the automatic control mode, the plant control system detects the reduction in core power and initiates control bank withdrawal in order to restore core power. As a result, power overshoot occurs, resulting in lower calculated departure from nucleate boiling ratios (DNBRs). At higher power levels, in the event of a dropped RCCA event, the RPS will detect the rapidly decreasing neutron flux due to the dropped RCCAs and trip the reactor based on the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function, thus ending the transient and assuring that DNBR design limits are maintained. Since the dropped RCCAs event is an AOO, it must be shown that to satisfy GDC 10 requirements, the DNBR design limits are met for the combination of high nuclear power, high radial peaking factor, and other system conditions that exist following the dropped RCCAs event.
By letter dated May 22, 1987, the Westinghouse Owners Group submitted a topical report WCAP-11394-P, Methodology for the Analysis of the Dropped Rod Event. This methodology provides a means to be used to demonstrate that DNBR limits are met during a dropped RCCA event. The analysis using this methodology takes no credit for any direct trip due to the dropped RCCAs, and assumes that no automatic power reduction features are actuated by the dropped RCCAs. The conclusion reached in WCAP-11394-P was that sufficient margin is expected with all Westinghouse plant designs and fuel types, such that the power range neutron flux high negative flux rate trip is not required, regardless of the worth of the dropped RCCA (or bank), subject to a plant cycle-specific analysis. As discussed in a safety evaluation (SE) dated October 23, 1989, the NRC reviewed the Westinghouse analysis and results and concluded that the approach in WCAP-11394-P was acceptable for analyzing the dropped RCCAs event for which no credit is taken for any direct trip or automatic power reduction features. The NRCs SE noted that further review by the NRC staff for each cycle is not necessary, subject to a licensee verification that the analysis described in WCAP-11394-P has been performed and makes comparison specified in the topical report with favorable results.
An approved version of the topical report (WCAP-11394-P-A) was issued in January 1990.
As described in PSEGs application dated May 1, 2006, the licensee reviewed the Salem safety analyses in the analysis of record and confirmed that Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.2.3.2.1 documents the analyses performed in accordance with the methodology of WCAP-11394 for one or more dropped RCCAs and for the dropped RCCA bank. The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is not credited in the accident analyses. For cases of dropped RCCAs or dropped bank, the DNBR remains greater than the safety limit value. Therefore, the DNB design acceptance criterion is met and the event does not result in core damage, meeting the GDC 10 fuel integrity requirement. In addition, as shown in Attachment 3 to the licensees application, PSEG will use the NRC-approved methodology in WCAP-11394-P-A for each fuel cycle to assure the minimum DNBR is maintained above the DNBR safety limit.
Based on the review of the licensees evaluation discussed above, the NRC staff agreed that the proposed deletion of the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function does not affect the analyses for the dropped RCCAs or dropped RCCA bank event, and that the proposed TS changes are consistent with the NRC-approved methodology described in WCAP-11394-P-A.
In addition, the NRC staff reviewed the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function against the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) as follows:
Criterion 1: The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is not used to detect and indicate a significant abnormal degradation of the RCPB.
Criterion 2: The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is not a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a DBA or transient analysis.
Criterion 3: The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is not an SSC that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a DBA or transient.
Criterion 4: The power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is not an SSC which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that the existing LCOs and related SRs associated with the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function do not satisfy any of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii).
The NRC staff concludes the proposed deletion of the TS requirements associated with the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function is acceptable since: (1) the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function does not affect the analyses for the dropped RCCAs or dropped RCCA bank event; (2) the proposed TS changes are consistent with the NRC-approved methodology described in WCAP-11394-P-A; and (3) the existing LCOs and related SRs associated with the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function do not satisfy any of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii).
3.2 Administrative and Editorial Changes The licensee also proposed the following administrative and editorial changes to the TSs:
An editorial change is proposed for Salem Unit 1 Index page XII to reflect the location of TS Bases Section 3/4.4.6 as page B 3/4 4-4a instead of page B 3/4 4-3.
An editorial change is proposed for the title of Salem Unit 1 TS Table 3.3-2 to correct a typographical error. The title currently reads REACTOR TRIP SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION RESPONSE ITEMS. The last word in the title would be changed from "ITEMS" to "TIMES".
Editorial changes are proposed for Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2 SR 4.2.2.2 to correct the subscript and superscript for the peaking factor term. Standard convention has the subscript followed by the superscript. The subscript and superscript are reversed in some cases.
! An editorial change is proposed for Salem Unit 1 TS 6.9.1.5.a to correct a typographical error. The word "totalling" would be changed to "totaling."
! An administrative change is proposed to eliminate Salem Unit 1 TS 6.9.1.5.b. TS 6.9.1.5.b currently requires the complete results of steam generator tube inservice inspections performed during the report period to be submitted to the NRC on an annual basis. This TS references TS 4.4.5.5.b. The TS 6.9.1.5.b requirement to submit results of steam generator tube inservice inspections was superceded by the changes made in Amendment No. 268.
Amendment No. 268 eliminated TS 4.4.5.5.b and added TS 6.9.1.10, "Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report."
! An editorial change is proposed for Salem Unit 2 SR 4.2.2.2.c.2 to correct a typographical error. The acronym CORL would be changed to "COLR."
An administrative change is proposed for Salem Unit 2 SR 4.2.2.2 to eliminate a footnote.
The footnote includes requirements that were applicable only for a prior fuel cycle (Cycle 11), and as such, is no longer applicable.
An editorial change is proposed to correct a typographical error for the Salem Unit 2 SR for boron concentration on page 3/4 9-1. The SR number would be changed from 4.9.2 to 4.9.1.
The NRC staff finds that the above proposed TS changes are administrative or editorial in nature and have no impact on safety. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the changes are acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey 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 changes SRs.
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 (71 FR 40752). 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.
6.0 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 Contributors: S. Sun R. Ennis Date: March 19, 2007