ML18086B150
| ML18086B150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B149 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112290045 | |
| Download: ML18086B150 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, 1.0 Introduction PHILADELPHIA E[ECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas Company has requested a modification to Technical Specification 3/4 5.2, ECCS Subsystem, to allow continued operation beyond the specified 72 *hours with one centri fuga 1 charging pump out-of-service.
In addition, they have requested a modification to Section h of Technical Specification 3/4 5.2 to postpone the required flow balancing test until the next cold shutdown.
2.0 Discussion The shaft of one of the centrifugal charging pumps experienced a shaft seizure during testing. Technical Specification 3/4 5.2 only allows 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of operation under these circumstances.
The intent of the Specification is to assure that the reliability of the ECCS remajrrs high.
The requirement for a flow balance test (5.2 h) also assures proper functioning of the system after modifications have been made.
PSE&G has request~d a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> extension of the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> requirement and a postponement of the flow balance test.
3.0 Evaluation The staff has evaluated the effect of these modifications on the ECCS reliability.
The probability of needing the centrifugal charging pumps during a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period is very small and the overall reduction in the centrifugal charging pump reliability over a one year period is also small (i.e., 2/365 =.5%).
In addition, the following actions have been taken to mitigate the loss of one centrifugal charging pump:: (1) the other centrifugal charging pump has been tested and demonstrated operable, and (2) the positive displacement charging pump has been tested and demonstrated operable.
~2290045 811215
, PDR ADOCK 05000311 I p PDR In terms of the flow balancing test, the intent will be met by testing the replacement pump to demonstrate that the flow-head characteristics are similar to the original character:istics of the failed pump.
Confirmatory testing will be required on the next cold shutdown.
4.0 Conclusions Based on the low probability of an event requiring the centrifugal charging pumps and the mitigating actions taken, we conclude that the proposed modifi-cations to Technical Specification 3/4 5.2 are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insigni-ficant 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 with the issuance of this amendment.
Con cl usi on We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(l) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences ofaccident:spreviously considered and does not involve a signi-ficant 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 1s regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 15, 1981