ML19332F088
| ML19332F088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332F084 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912130383 | |
| Download: ML19332F088 (3) | |
Text
'
s M if00 I - ['
\\"
UNITED STATES f '
.?
m g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t 4
f; WASHWoTO% D. C. 20555
...+ -
t SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR-REACTOR REGULATION A
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.105 AND ' 82 TO FAClllTY OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY 4
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
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 23, 1989 and supplemental letters dated April 14, 1989, August 25, 1989, September 22, 1989 and October 26, 1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company-requested en amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Hos. I and 2.
The supplenental letter dated April 14, 1989, provided the revised Technical Specification pages that had been inadvertently
?
cmitted from the March 23, 1989 submittal. The supplemental letter dated
' August 25, 1989 requested withdrawel of that portion of the March 23, 1989 i
application associated with adding surveillance requirements for fuses.
The supplemental letter dated September 22, 1989 provided revised-Bases
.pages that: eliminated mention of fuses. The pages had been inadvertently l
omitted from the August-25, 1989 supplementel letter. The October 26,
?,
1989 letter provided corrected technical specification pages B 3/4 8-1 for l
Unit 1 and 2 and page 3/4 8-16 for Unit 2.
The supplemental letters did rct increase the scope of the original amendment request and did not affect the staff's original no significant hazards' determination. The l
proposed amendments would modify the Salem Unit 2 Technical Specifications l
by deleting Technical' Specification (TS) Table 3.8-1, " Containment l
Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices," and modify Bases l
3/4.8.3 to require controls for maintaining the list of protective devices similar to those required for snubbers as described in Generic Letter 84-13, dated May 3, 1984. Additionally, an identic61 specification would l
be added to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications for consistency between units.
l 2.0 EVALUATION l
Currently the list of containment penetratico conductor overcurrent protective oevices and their setpoints are controlled by Table 3.8-1 in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
Changes to these breakers and their setpoints require a license amendment, even if the ' change is in the conservative direction.
h o$
2 P
7 Y_g m
-?-
l Deleting Table.3.8-1 from the Technical Specifications and requiring administrative controls for the protective devices is similar to the n$!"N%e chl!N'[ tit $ TN'6M.I"Th!0!NalM!ffNabo$"N.NT1 s
will. continue to require that the containment penetration conductor overcurrent' protective devices be operable. The currently required surveillance will continue to be performed and the required corrective actions will be taken if the devices are found to be inoperable.
The licensee has committed to incorporating the list of containment penetration overcurrent protective devices and setpoints into the next revision to the Updated Final ! Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Additionally, the setpoints for t"ne subject devices will be incorporated into plant maintenance procedures-and plant drawings which are controlled plant documents. Changes to the setpoints and devices are made through this controlled system in accordance with the licensee's Quality Assurance-Program and within the.ouidance of 10 CFR 50.59.
Changes under 10 CFR 50.59 can be made without a license amendment only after the licensee completes a written safety evaluation which provides i
the bases for the determindion that the change, test or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Thus, there is no reduction in the requirements for the licensee to establish that there is no -
unreviewed safety question prior to making changes to the list of e
- containment penetration overcurrent protection devices. Those safety evaluations are available for staff reviu at the plant site.
Although this-proposed change would delete the table of protective devices from
-the technical specifications and thereby allow the licensee some flexibility for changes as discussed earlier, the basis for the protective devices is discussed in the "Rasss" section of the technical specifications. There, the safety reason for these devices is clearly stated; Tneir purpose is to. limit circuit fault current to a value below the electrical penetration _ rating. Eliminating any protective uevice from the UFSAR list would require a 10 CFR 50.59 review.
Because deleting l-a required protective device would constitute a reduction in a margin of safety as defined in the basis for_ a technical specification, the -
licensee.could not make such a change without prior NRC approval.
R Therefore, the staff is satisfied that the essential overcurrent devices l
would remain (or an application for amendment would be tendered) and it m
is acceptable to delete the table,
/
Addition of an identical requirement to the Unit 1 technical l-Specifications is included as part of the licensee's ongoing program to L<
achieve consistency between the Unit i and Unit 2 Technical 0
Specifications, t-In the initici submittal, the licensee had included a section on surveillance requirements for fuses.
After discussions with the project manager and reviewing the Calloway sibmittal that deleted the surveillance l
requirements for fuses, the licensee, by letters dated August 25, 1989 and September 22, 1989, withdrew that portion of the request.
l I.
,l i
(
j L '*
3-I RJ 9Ctober 26, 1989 letter provided onges that corrected administrative errors in the previous submittals.
It also requested delaying irrois. mentation on Unit 1 until startup from the ninth refueling outage, scheduled for the Fall, 1990. This was to allow the utility time to
-prepare procedures and perform the surveC lances that are being added to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications. The staff finds this acceptable.
At the request of the licensee, administrative changes were made to the INDEX to more accurately reflect the contents of the Technical Specifications.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONS!0 ERAT 10N These amendments involve a change to a % airement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located wiihin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and chances to the surveillarce requirements. The staff has determined that the anendments inynive no significant % crease in the amnunts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluen+s that may be released offsite and that there is nn significant increase in individual or cumulativo 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 comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.??(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environitental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in conrection with the issuance of the amendirents.
- t. 0 00NCLilSION The Commission nade a proposeo determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 23323) en May 31, 1080 and contulted with the State oT Tew Jersey, No public comments w m received ano the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
The sta4 has concluded, based en the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be enonngered by operation in the pronosed manner, and (?) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and tha issuance of the amen &ents will not be inimit'll to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Jim Stone Dated:
D::cember 4.1989 4
, - +
-,m a
e
<