ML18086A992
| ML18086A992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A991 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111030678 | |
| Download: ML18086A992 (3) | |
Text
- -**-*--***"***-*--*~.:..-* ___.._,; __.:.:._ _____.:.._, ____...:___ ______ : ________ --
.*....,..._.. ______ __:_ ___ : __ *---*-***-~---
-~~-.:..*-______ ::.... *----~*'-*** ----------
--'**-**--*--~'* ***-'*-*.,, __ ;_. ----.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM.ISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO FACILITY,OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND-GAS COMPANY, PHILDELPHIA*E[ECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND
- "ATlANTIC'CITY*E[ECTRIC COMPANY
- sALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311.
Introduction In. Supplement 4 to the Salem Unit 2 Safety Evaluation Report we concluded, with regards to the Salem Unit 2 Containment Isolation System, that:.
(1) The system is acceptable in_ tenns of valve operability since {a) the
. valves in the 36-:-1nch lines will be closed during all plant operations except for refueling and cold shutdown, (b) the valves in the lO~inch line will be aligned such that the maximum open position corresponds to 60 degrees, and (c) the torque required to close the valves in the 10-inch line, in the event of an accident, is well below the allowable actuator torque; (2) The use of the pressure-vacuum relief system, as needed, during operating modes requiring containment integrity, namely startup, power operation, hot standby or hot shutdown, is acceptable since the combined loss-of-coolant accident dose is within the guideline ;_values of 10.CFR'Rart.TOO; (3)
Debris screens are satisfactorily installed; (4) The reset circuitry is acceptable in that is will prevent inadvertent reset of the containment isolation signal; (5) The containment purge system and pressure-vacuum relief system designs satisfy the provisions of Branch Technical P,ositiOn CSB 6-4 and that,
operation of the system as proposed is acceptable.
In addition to the above findings, we referenced our review of the long-term
-operability of the containment purge valves and stated that any changes to our requirements identified through our revtew would be imposed on Salem Unit 2, as appropriate.
In Supplement 5 to the Salem Unit 2 Safety Evaluation Report the long-tenn valve operability review remained an open item. However, a 8111030678 811015 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
--*--;--*~*----------*-~----~ -----*--~-*-- *--.-.--..-------.--.-------~--*--------
~--
1 imitation was, imposed on the use of the pressl!re..;vacuum relief system to a total of no more than 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year during nonnal plant operating modes of startup,. power, hot standby, and hot shutdown.
. By.letter, dated September 23, 1981,* the licensee requested a change to the
- Salem Unit, 2 Safety Technical Specifications {Appen.dix A) to remove the present limit of 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year for the use of the pressure-vacuum relief system.
Discussion and E~,l~ation By fatter, dated* November 28, 1978, the Cormnission {NRC) requested all licensees of operating reactors to.respond to generic concerns about containment purging*
or* venting during normal -pl ant operation. The review of the licensee 1 s response to this letter was subsequently interrupted by the TMI accident and*its demand on staff resources.
Consequently~ an Interim Position on containment purging and venting was transmitted to the licensee for Salem.Unit l on October 30, 1979.
In response to this the licensee implemented specific short-tenn corrective actions to remain in effect pending completion of the longer-tenn review of the licensee 1 s response to our November 28,.1978 letter.
The NRC Interim Position transmitted on October 30, 1979, was used in the review of Salem Unit 2 for-issuance of its full power license. The results.of this review, as documented in Supplement 4 to the Salem 2 SER and discussed above,.
show that Salem Unit 2 satisfies the October 30, 1979 interim position and is satisfactory for-operation pending completion of our long-term review. Subsequent to this finding, a further interim limitation of 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year was pl aced on the use of the pressure-vacuum relief system at Salem Unit 2 during normal opera-tion.;.
This 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year limitation has been subsequently refined to specify that this limit shall be imposed when the estimated amount of radioactivity released during the time requried to close the valves, following a LOCA, causes the total dose to exceed the Guid'elines of 10 CFR Part 100. *As stated in supplement 4 to the Salem Unit 2 SER and reaffirmed in the licensee's letter of September 23, 1981 the radiological consequences of a LOCA while using the pressure-vacuum relief system is within the guideline*;values of 10 CFR Part 100.
Safety Conclusion Based on the above discussion we conclude that Salem Unit 2 satisfies our Interim Position on containment purging and venting and shall operate under those..guide-1 ines pending completion of our long-tenn review. The 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year limitation
. currently in place may be deleted and an administrative goal established which represents a limit on the annual hours of purging expected.
-~~---------------*---- *- ---- ---------- -*------- - -.-.,
--~ --*------**- -- -- *--.---* ~.:--:- -*--*---.:*-------=-----.-----*----*--- *---:---*-::--*----=-*-- ------;-------*--*------.-:--~
...... ~
~* --*,_ ~-----*_.....:_ ____ - ***-* *****-- **-*,,_,,. - -- - **---*- --.... _,.. ____,_ **------
- -..,.:,,_, __ :_, __. ______... *_,,_... :.. _.:_. __,*~----~-.. -* __... _*_..t.*-~--.::~~*-.... ~.. ~-*
I
- The licensee, in its letter of September 23, 1981, has suggested that a goal
.of 2,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per year be* established, for the use of the pressure-vacuum
- re 1 i ef system at Sa 1 em* Unit 2.
The 1 i censee has not provided a' bases for
- this goal.
We shall r:equire the licensee to provide.this bases prior to.
January_l~, 1982, for our review and detennination as to its acceptability.
At that time the goal would be placed in.the,Technical Specification Bases.
We now require that the 36-inch valves should be locked dosed when above 200°F react~r cool ant temperature and verified locked closed every 31 days; and the l0-1nch valves shall be operated within the NRC Staff Interim Position pending our evaluation of the long tenn operability review.
It is emphasized
,that our Interim Position requires that purging/venting be minimized and conducted only whe~ justified for safety purposes.
Environmental Consideration We have detennined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and wi 11 not result in any sign1ficant en~ironmental impact. Having made this.determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and; pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection w'Lth the issuance of this amendment.*
Conciusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously conside~d and does not involve a ~ignifi cant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not *.be endangered. by operation in the proposed manner, and (*3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to. the coJlillon defense and security or to the health and safety of the p~blic.
Date:
October 15, 1981
- , '. ~
- ._.s**.;:r*"'.* * *.:~-.::.;_,:_~-";f..
'i..
'.