ML18086B456
| ML18086B456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B455 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205030022 | |
| Download: ML18086B456 (2) | |
Text
-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEND~ENT ~O. 6 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-75 Introduction PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY.
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND A7LANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311 In a letter dated February 8, 1982 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) requested clianges to the Technical Specifications for Salem Unit 2 related to Power Distribution Limits. These changes include:
(1) an increase in the allowa5le axial flux difference operating band about the target flux difference from +5% to +6 to -9%, and (2) a modification of the allowable limit on Fxy at fractional thermal power By changing the multiplier from 0.2 to 0.3 in the equation Fxyl = FxyR'fP[l+0.3(1-P)].
Evaluation
~he *ltcensee has performed an analysis of total peaking-factor versus core height for normal plant operation of Salem Unit 2 during Cycle 1. This analysis used a control band of +6 to -~% flux difference about the target flux band and a +0.3 multiplier in the Fxy allowed at peak power.
The analysis was performed using a standard set of 18 cases documented in a Westinghouse letter from C Eiche1dinger to D. B. Vassallo of the NRC dated July 16, 1975.
Our approval to use this analysis for.ill band widening was given in a letter from D. B. Vassalio to C. Eicheldinger dated April 15, 1976.
Such analyses have been approved and used for most Westinghouse reloads in*
the past few years, including Salem Unit 1.
The results of the analysis provided for Salem Unit 2 cycle l show that the total peaking factor will continue to fall below the value of 2.32 (with axial shaping above the core centerline) used as an initial assumption in
.tbe ECCS analysis. Since this analysis uses techniques approved by us in the past, and shows that no increase in maximum total peaking factor will occ~r in normal operation of the power plant during cycle 1, we conclude operation will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR '50.46, Appendix k.
We, therefore, find the proposed changes acceptable.
--~--- - ------
L
-J
~ 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.
Havingb*made this* determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact anc, pursuant to 10 CFR §51.. 5{d){4), that an
- environmental impact statement or negative declara:ion and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion 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 considered and does not involve* a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does no: involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public wi11 not be endangered by operation in the proposed m2nner, and (3) such activiti.es will be conducted in compliance wi:h the Corrt7.issfon's regulations and the issuance of this amendment wi11 not be inimical to the com~on defense a;,d security or to the health and safety of
_the public *
. Dated:
March 29, 1982