ML18089A345
| ML18089A345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1983 |
| From: | Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18089A344 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309140069 | |
| Download: ML18089A345 (2) | |
Text
Description of Change Attachment LCR 82-17 Section 3/4.7.9, Paragraph 4.7.9a is to be revised as follows:
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.9 Each snubber shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of the following augmented inservice inspection program and the requirements of Specification 4.0.5.
- a.
Visual Inspection An inservice visual inspection of all snubbers listed in Tables 3.7-4a and 3.7-4b shall be performed in accordance with the following schedule for each separate Table.
No. Inoperable Snubbers in a Table per Inspection Period 0
1 2
3, 4 5, 6, 7 8 or more Subsequent Inspection Period for each Table*#
18 months + 25%
12 months + 25%
6 months + 25%
124 days + 25%
62 days + 25%
31 days + 25%
Within each Table, the snubbers may be categorized into two groups:
Those accessible and those inaccessible during reactor operation.
Each group within a Table may be inspected independently in accordance with the above schedule.
- The inspection interval shall not be lengthened more than one step at a time.
- The provisions of Specification 4.0.2 are not applicable.
Reason For Change In our October 7, 1982 amendment application, PSE&G requested that Specification 4.7.9a for Unit No. 2 be revised to clarify the requirements for the initial and second visual inspections of snubbers.
Since that time, the second visual inspection of snubbers has been conducted.
These inspections were conducted consistent with the guidelines provided in discussions with the NRC as detailed in our October 7, 1982 application; i.e., the second inservice inspection was conducted at the first plant shutdown of sufficient duration.
Since the first and second inspections are now complete, these specific requirements are now moot.
Therefore, PSE&G proposes that Specification 4.7.9a be revised to be consistent with the Unit No. 1 specification which only addresses the current visual inspection requirements.
Thus, this would represent strictly an administrative change to the Unit No. 2 specification.
8309140069.830909 PDR ADOCK 05000311 p
~ --- Safety Evaluation Industry wide operating experiences have shown that the major distribution of failures among dynamic restraints, particularly hydraulic snubbers, has been within the first few months of operation at full operating temperature. This service condition is achieved independent of the level of power operation as long as the plant is at normal operating temperatures.
Visual examination of the Salem Unit 2 hydraulic snubbers after approximately four months at f~ll operating temperature and again during the first cycle refueling similarly revealed no evidence of failure or abnormal conditions.
It is concluded, based on the consideration discussed above, that 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, this amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
av18 1-2