ML18093B537
| ML18093B537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18093B535 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903310044 | |
| Download: ML18093B537 (3) | |
Text
,,
e UNITED$TATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.
91 AND 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 By letter dated January 3, 1989 and supplemented by letter dated February 16, 1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The supplemental letter provided additional clarifying information but did not change the original application.
The proposed amendments would redefine the FULLY WITHDRAWN position of the rod control cluster assemblies (RCCAs) from 228 steps withdrawn to a band between 222 steps and 228 steps withdrawn.
Other proposed changes are:
delete Figure 3.1.2 from the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs); delete Specification 3.10.5 from the Unit 2 TSs; and incorporate rod drop testing requirements into Specification 3.1.3.2.2 for Units 1 and 2.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed the change to minimize 'localized rod cluster control assembly (RCCA) wear at the tip of the control rods.
The proposed technical specification change will allow operation with the RCCAs inserted up to six steps (Step 222) from their normal withdrawn position (Step 228).
The licensee has committed to defining the specific step between 222 and 228 as FULLY WITHDRAWN in the Reload Safety Analysis for that cycle.
At 222 steps withdrawn the RCCAs are 3.5 inches into the active fuel region.
Because the top region of the core has such low worth, the resultant power distribution perturbations are calculated to be negligibli and can be accommodated with available margin.
Similarly, the effect on shutdown margin is minimal (0.06% ~) and can be accommodated by available excess shutdown margin (2.55% ~. Unit 1 end
- 3903310044 890322 PDI:;:
ADIJCK 05000272 p
'!"\\
, *1 I "'J I
I
'/1
.. *of cycle 8; and 1.68% ~p, Unit 2 end of cycle 5).
These calculations include the rods at step 228 plus other appropriate uncertainties and allowance for the most reactive rod stuck out.
The Technical Specifications for shutdown margin is 1.6% ~-
The impact on other key parameters was found to be negligible in the licensee 1s analysis.
Because the proposed change will insert RCCAs so little into the active fuel region, the staff would expect essentially negligible effects of the proposed change as reported in the licensee 1 s evaluation.
As such the staff finds this proposed change to be acceptable.
Figure 3.1.2 in the Salem 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) provides the Rod Bank Insertion Limits versus Thermal Power for three-loop operation.
Operation of Salem 1 with less than 4-loops has not been approved.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to delete Figure 3.1.2 from the Salem 1 TSs rather than modifying the curve to reflect the redefinition of FULLY WITHDRAWN.
The staff finds this proposed change to be acceptable.
Special Test Exception (STE) 3.10.5 is an exception to Specification 3.1.3.2.2 that allows the Analog Rod Position Indication (ARP!) system to be inoperable during control rod drop time measurements.
The bases of STE 3.10.5 states 11The exception is required since the data necessary to determine rod drop times is derived from the induced voltage in position indicator coils as the rod is dropped.
This induced voltage is small compared to the normal voltage and, therefore, cannot be observed if the position indication systems remain OPERABLE 11 Amendment 73 to Salem 1 TSs and 48 to Salem 2 TSs changed Specification 3.1.3.2.2 to require the group demand position indicators to be OPERABLE in Modes 3, 4 and 5, thus
. eliminating the requirement to have the ARP! system OPERABLE in Modes 3, 4 and 5.
For this reason, STE 3.10.5 is no longer necessary.
However, STE 3.10.5 did limit withdrawal of only one s.hutdown bank or one control bank at a time from the fully inserted position.
Also, K ff is to be maintained less than or equal to 0.95.
In order to mainta'n these restrictions on control rod drop time tests, the licensee has proposed to add these restrictions to Specification 3.1.3.2.2 in the Salem 1 and 2 TSs.
The staff finds this proposed change to be acceptable.
In addition to the above, typographical errors were corrected in the changed pages.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has detennined that the.
amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public cortlnent on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli9ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
- 4. 0 CONCLUSION The Co1m1ission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in.the Federal Register (54 FR 6208) on February 8, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in ~ompliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: J. Stone Dated:
March 22, 1989