ML18096A080
| ML18096A080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1991 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18096A081 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-91-05, LCR-91-5, NLR-N91064, NUDOCS 9106260161 | |
| Download: ML18096A080 (7) | |
Text
..
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President - Nuclear Operations
- t.
JUN 2 o 1~91 NLR-N91064 LCR 91-05 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ECCS ACCUMULATORS SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311.
In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Statiol'!, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
In accordance with 10CFR50.91 (b) (1) requirements, a copy of this request has been sent to the State of New Jersey.
The proposed amendment modifies Technical Specification section 3.5.1, surveillance requirement 4.5.1.c.
The current surveillance requires verification that power to the safety injection accumulator isolation valves is disconnected by removal of the breaker from the circuit.
The control power lockout switches were recently modified to provide the necessary protection against single active failure, thus removal of the breaker from the circuit is unnecessary.
The proposed amendment also modifies the applicability of surveillance requirement 4. 5. L c to agree with the applicability of the specification.
The current applicabilities are inconsistent with each other. includes a description, reason, justification and significant hazards analysis for the proposed change. contains the Technical Specification pages revised with pen and ink changes.
9106260161 910620 PDR ADOCK 05000272 p
)'
Document Control Desk NLR-N91064 i....:2-I JUN 2 o 1991 We request that the implementat~on date be established at 60 days following issuance of the appro~ed License Amendment.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, Attachments (2)
Aw-£~
I /4-st-&
c Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administratdr I
Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
STATE OF NEW JERSEY I
i REF:NLR-N91064 SS.i COUNTY OF SALEM Steven E. Miltenberger, being and says:
j duly sworn according to law deposes I
I I am Vice President and Chief NJclear Officer of Public Service I
Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated
, concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
. ~
2--j(J2J~
I Subscribed and Sworn to before this day of ~
~*~*k!J£ My Commission expires on I me 199¢ ELIZABETH J. KIDD Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires April 25, 1995 NLR-N91064 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 TITLE OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I.
Description of Change LCR 91-05
- a.
Modify Technical Specification surveillance requirement 4.5.1.c to delete the requirement to remove' the circuit breakers from the circuit.
- b.
Modify Technical Specification surveillance requirement 4.5.1.c to state when the RCS pressure is greater than 1000 psig.
II.
Reason for the Change
- a.
The safety injection accumulator isolation valves control circuits contain power lockout switches.
These switches disconnect power to the valve actuator.
As previously reported to the NRC, design changes lEC-2295 and 2EC-2295 modified the control circuits to install interposing relays.
An error in this design change introduced a potential single failure in the closing circuit.
Design changes lSC-2272 and 2SC-2272 modified the closing circuit to eliminate the potential single failure.
Completion of these design changes has eliminated the need to remove the breakers from the circuit.
The modified closing circuits mee~ single failure criteria and equire two independent operator actions to close the valve: operating the power lockout switch and depressing the close pushbutton.
Removing the breaker from the circuit is an unnecessary requirement that could cause a significant delay if it becomes necessary to close the accumulator outlet valves.
- b.
The surveillance requirement is being changes from 2000 psig to 1000 psig to assure compliance with the applicability of Technical Specification 3.5.1.
NLR-N91064 LCR 91-05 III. Justification for the Change
- a.
Safety Injection accumulator power operated outlet valves do not require removal of the breaker from the circuit to prevent single active failure.
The control power lockout switch installed in each valve's closing circuit provides protection against a single failure causing an inadvertent closure during the injection phase.
Two positive operator actions are necessary to close the valve: operation of the power lockout switch and operation of the close pushbutton.
The breakers are located in the Auxiliary Building which is remote from the Control Room.
It would be necessary to dispatch an equipment operator to rack in the breaker to operate the valve.
Should it become necessary to close the valve, this could cause a delay.
Maintaining the breaker closed with power removed by the lockout switch will not alter the system or functions as described in the UFSAR sections 7.3.2.6 and 7.3.2.7 or in the Technical Specification Basis section 3/ 4. 5. 1.
- b.
Changing the surveillance requirement from 2000 psig to 1000 psig will ensure the surveillance is performed
. whenever the specification is applicable.
This is an administrative change that corrects an apparent typographical error.
IV.
Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 10CFR50.92, PSE&G has reviewed the proposed changes and concluded the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration because the changes would not:
- 1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
- a. The proposed deletion of the surveillance requirement to remove the breaker from the circuit for the safety injection accumulator isolation valves would not affect the accident analysis.
The control power lockout switches provide protection against a single active failure and two operator actions would be required to close the valve.
Therefore, would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
NLR-N91064 LCR 91-05
- b.
The proposed change is an administrative change to correct an apparent typographical error.
Therefore, it would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
- a.
The control power lockout switches protect against a single active failure and two operator actions would be required to close the valve.
Deletion of the requirement to remove the breaker from the circuit will not introduce any_ new failure modes.
Therefore, there can be no impact on plant response to the point where a different accident is created.
- b.
The proposed change is an administrative correct an apparent typographical erroro there can be no impact on plant response where a different accident is created.
change to Therefore, to the point
- 3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
- a.
The control power lockout switch will* provide the protection currently being provided by removing the breaker from the circuit.
The proposed change will delete the requirement to remove the breaker from the circuit, but will still require.verification of the power lockout switch position every 31.days when reactor coolant system pressure is greater-than 1000 psig.
Therefore, there. is nci reduction in any margin of safety.
- b.
The proposed change is an administrative change to correct an apparent typographical error.
Therefore, there can be no reduction in any margin to safety.
- v.
Conclusions Based on the information presented above, PSE&G has concluded there is no significant hazards consideration.
ATTACHMENT 2