ML19316A819
| ML19316A819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A818 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005270582 | |
| Download: ML19316A819 (3) | |
Text
-
w e2 req gfi
),;
UNITED STATES y " i -c.,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
, E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 25 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-272 Introduction In response to NRC staff letter dated August 1,1979, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the licensee, submitted by letter dated.
January 25, 1980 a proposed license condition requiring implementation of a secondary side water chemistry monitoring and control program, and requested the present Technical Specification on secondary side chemistry, and the related surveillance requirements associated with those Techni-cal Specifications, be deleted.
The licensee also advised the staff by letter of January 28, 1980 of three changes in the organization for operating the Salem Nuclear Generating j
Station and requested that Appendices A and B be revised to reflect these changes.
Discussion and Evaluation Secondary Water Chemistry - Addition of a Licensing Condition in Place of Existing Technical Specifications The NRC staff recognizes that different utilities use different secondary water treatment methods to limit steam generator tube corrosion.
- Moreover, we recognize that a licensee's choice of a particular water treatment method, including specific values of operating limits for chemistry parameters, is governed by plant and site characteristics that are unique to each facility.
In addition, we do not believe at this time that sufficient service experience exists to conclude tF.M hy particular method is superior to another for controlling impurities 'm'f. mLy be introduced into the secondary coolant. Such experience #tle be necessary before prescriptive Technical Specifications on secorir3 w > :r chemistry could, with assurance, inimize tube degradation.
Restricting the amount of chemical additions to r.ontrol the water chemistry parameters would not ensure the desired steam generator operating conditions.
Realizing that meeting the secondary coolant water quality criteria would not be possible during all period of operation, it is necessary that the most effective procedure for reestablishing out-of-specificathn chemistry parameters 8
$006270
v
. be available without unduly restricting plant operations. This can be accomplisbi d most rapidly by continuing to operate the unit so that chemical additives to the secondary water can be made to achieve a balanced chemistry.
In particular, we have concluded that the Technical Specification on secondary water chemistry does not provide adequate flexibility to allow desired water conditions to be achieved gradually or ensure long-term tube integrity.
In addition, these specifications may not limit specific types of severe tube degradation, particularly " denting."
Furthermore, the possible adverse effects of any secondary water parameter limits on the steam purity that could lead to potential failure of rotating turbine components must also be considered before specific limits are required.
We believe that other methods for reducing the impurity concentration in the steam generator such as periodic chemical cleaning for long-term solution, fluxing or free surface boiling for an intermediate term solution, or the use of chelating agents for the control of secondary water purity are more practical. These methods are likely to be more effective in limiting corro-sion than specific Technical Specifications that may lack the flexibility
)
needed for proper control of secondary water chemistry.
The NSSS vendors are now considering these alternate methods in lieu of restrictive secondary-water chemistry limits for assuring steam gerierator tube integrity. We proposed that the licensee implement a secondary water chemistry monitoring program to inhibit steam generator tube degradation. By letter dated January 25, 1980, the licensee agreed to the program and applied for a license amendment to so condition the license.
In addition, other existing Technical Specification limiting conditions for l
operation and surveillance requirements for secondary water monitoring require-ments provide assurance that steam generator tube integrity will not be reduced below an acceptable level for adequate margins of safety. These specifications are:
1.
Technical Specification 3.7.1.4 - Secondary Coolant System Activity Monitoring Requirements 2.
Technical' Specification 3.4.6.2 - Reactor Coolant System Leakage Rates
-3.
Technical Specification 3.4.5 - Steam Generator Tube Surveillance and.
Plugging Criterion Based on the above, we conclude that-the following license condition requiring a secondary water chemistry monitoring program is an acceptable replacement for Specifications 3.7.1.6 and 4.7.1.6 and Tables 3.7-3 and 4.7-3 of the existing Technical Specifications:
)
i
a
. SECONDARY WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING The licensee shall implement a secondary water chemistry monitoring program to inhibit steam generator tube degradation.
This program shall include:
1.
Identification of a sampling schedule for the critical parameters and control points for these parameters; 2.
Identification of the procedures used to measure the values of the critical parameters; 3.
Identification of process sampling paints; 4.
Procedure for the recording and management of data; 5.
Procedures defining corrective actions for off control point chemistry conditions; and 6.
A procedure identifyin (a) the authority responsible for the inter-pretation of the data,gand (b) the sequence and timing of administrative events required to initiate corrective action.
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 envirorynental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration 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 not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the oublic.
Date: April 22, 1980