ML18092A960
| ML18092A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1985 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512310414 | |
| Download: ML18092A960 (6) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear December 10, 1985 Public Service Electric and Gas Cq111pany Post-Office Box 236 --
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
Dear Mr. McNeill:
Local PDR PD#3 Reading HThompson OELD E. Jordan B. Grimes J. Partlow D-. Fischer C. Parrish ACRS (10)
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SERVICE WATER HEADER OUTAGE By letter dated August 30, 1985, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) requested changes to the Technical Specifications permitting one service water header to be taken out of service for inspection and upgrading for several weeks during refueling.
The Technical Specifications already permit one service water header to be taken out of service for an indefinite period while in mode 6 when the water level is greater than 23 feet above the top of the core.
The usual time duration of mode 6 high water level during refueling is 9 days, however PSE&G believes that 32 days will be required to perform the anticipated inspection and upgrading.
As a backup to the single operable service water header, PSE&G has proposed various measures to reduce the likelihood of failure and to provide for decay heat removal and tomponent cooling.
We require additional information in order to complete our review
_ of this matter.
Enclosed is the request for information.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated PWR3-A CParrish:kb 12/ /85 PW~
DFmll"er 12/$ /85
( 8512310414 851210
- PDR ADOCK 05000272 p
-I I
Sincerely,
/s/SVarga Steven A. Varga, Director PWR Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Mr. C. A. McNeill Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Richard Fryling,' Jr., Esquire Assistant General Solicitor Public Service Electric & Gas Company P. O. Box 570 - Mail Code TSE Newark, New Jersey 07101 Gene Fisher, Bureau of Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Mr. John M. Zupko, Jr.
General Manager - Salem Operations Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Robert Traae, Mayor Lower Alloways Creek Township Muni ci pal Ha 11 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Thomas Kenny, Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission Drawer I Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Richard F. Engel Deputy Attorney General Department of Law and Public Safety CN-112 State'House Annex Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitta General Manager Power Production Engineering Atlantic Electric 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Richard B. McGlynn, Commission Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersey 101 Corrrnerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Mail Code T16D - P. 0. Box 570 Newark, New Jersey 07101 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear R~gulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Edwin A. Liden, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Regulation Public Service Electric & Gas Company Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Charles P. Johnson Genera 1 Manager Nuclear Quality Assurance Public Service Electric & Gas Company Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylva~ia 17120 Frank Casolito, Action Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST SALEH SERVICE WATER.ouTAGE Enclosure
- 1. The Safety Evaluation provides descriptions of alternate cooling modes which would lead to containment contamination and radioactive releases to the environment and further relies on non-safety related equipment.
These measures would be used as a backup in the event that the single remaining service water header failed. The staff believes that reliance on these measures should be minimized and that restoration of service water should be the first priority of plant personnel.
a)
Describe in detail the inspection and upgrading operations that would be performed on the service water headers when taken out of service.
At each stage describe the actions and time required to restore the affected service water header in the event that failure occurred in the operating header.
b)
Describe procedures and training that will be implemented for emergency restoration of a service water header which is out for maintenance.
- 2.
The Safety Evaluation for the proposed change states that single service water header availability will only occur for a 32 day period during anticipated refueling outages.
Since part of the justification for the proposed change is that the time interval will be relatively short, the staff requires that the outage time for a service water header be provided and included in the proposed technical specifications.
2
- 3.
The proposed technical specifications provide for additional equipment to be operable during the period when one service water header is out of service.
Options are provided that either (a) two steam generators will be operable or (b) redundant RHR, CCW and service water pumps will be available.
Service water is required to cool the auxiliary feedwater pumps, which would be required for the first option.
Provide justifi~
cation for not requiring redundant service water pumps for option (a).
Discuss operability limitations for the AFW pumps without service water.
- 4.
The Safety Evaluation states that emergency procedures will be written to include steps to be taken in the event that all service water were lost.
Provide the timetable for implementing the revised procedures and associated operator training relative to the time when the inspection and upgrading operations on the service water system would be performed.
- 5.
The Safety Evaluation states that control rod withdrawal accidents cannot occur during the proposed operations, since the control rods will not be energized. We bel~eve that this pr.ovision should be included in the technical specifications or that a safety analysis be provided demonstrating that the plant can withstand a postulated control rod withdrawal accjdent
- during mode 5 and 6 operation.
- 6.
The Safety Evaluation discusses a short term means of cooling the core if all service water were lost, by which water from the RWST woul.d be pumped into the reactor system and back into the RWST until the 120°F
.~
- f
.e 3
limit on RWST temperature w~re reached.
Since the RWST is vented, radioactive releases to the public might result from recycling reactor coolant.
Assuming maximum coolant radioactivity, demonstrate that the offsite radiation release would be acceptable.
- 7.
In the event that service water were lost for an extended period of time, the Safety Evaluatjon states that the core would be cooled by injection of RWST water which would be allowed to boil into the containment.
Since service water would be required for containment heat removal, containment overpressure would have to be prevented by venting.
a)
The Safety Evaluation states that a detailed dose calculation was performed and that the results were acceptable.
Provide further information concerning the dose calculation including the initial coolant activity assumed, the activity and nature of the radionuclides assumed in the source-term, and the dose calculated at the site boundary.
b)
Provide analyses of the effect of continued boiling in the core on boron concentration within the coolant channels.
If boron precipitation is calculated to occur, provide the effect on core heat transfer and fuel heatup.
- 8.
The Safety Evaluation discusses use of temporary hose connections and portable fans to replace some of the functions of the service water system if required.
It is further stated that a new procedure will be
c I 4
written which, among other things, will verify that portable fans are easily available. Will the procedure also verify that the temporary hose connections are also easily available?
- 9.
If service water is lost, several days were stated to be required before the spent fuel pit water would begin to boil. Justify that service water cooling could be restored within this period or provide analyses of the consequences of spent fuel pit boiling including offsite dose consequences and the long term heat transfer degradation from boron precipitation within the fuel element cooling channels.