ML19341B203
| ML19341B203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B201 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101300437 | |
| Download: ML19341B203 (2) | |
Text
_
f,
'c, UNtTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20065 g(jg/-l
%{..C SAFETY IVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENOMENT NO. 30 TO FALTLITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT CCS.PANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY i
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-272 Introduction public Service Electric and Gas Company requested power distribution control Technical Specification changes in a letter to S. Varga, NRC, dated.,0ctober 20, 1980. The changes are:
1.
to increase the allowable axial flux difference operating band about the target flux difference from +5% to +6 to -9%, and 2.
to modify the allowable limit on F at f'ractional thermal power by changing xy the multiplier from 0.2 to 0.3 in the equation F
=F RU [1 + 0.3(1-P)]
x g
Evaluation The licensee has provided an analysis of total peaking factor versus core height for cycle 3 operation of Salem Unit 1 starting with a cycle 2 core bdrnup of 3000 MWD /MTU. This analysis used a control band of +5 to -9% flux difference allowed at part
. about the target flux band and a +0.3 multiplier in the Fm The analysis was performed using a sta dard set of 18 uses documented power.
in a Westinghouse letter frora C. Eiche1dinger to D. B. Vassallo of the NRC dat July,16, 1975. Our approval to use this analysis for AI band widening was given in a letter from D. B. Vassallo to C. Eiche1dinger dated April, 15, 1976.
Such analyses have been used and apprcved for most Westinghouse reloads in the past few years.
8101300
t 2
The results of the analysis provided for Salem Unit 1 cycle 3 show that the peak total oeaking ' factor will continue to fall below the value of -2.32 (with axial shaping above the core centerline) used as an initial assumption in the ECCS analysis.
Since this analysis uses techniques approved by us in the past, and shows-no increase in the maximum total peaking factor will occur in normal operation of the power plant during cycle 3, we conclude operation will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K.
We therefore find the proposed changes acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increasa in po er level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having'made this detemination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant frem the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR {51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and en'.f ron-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concludeo, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involse a significant increase l
in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the l
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health anc' 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 Corrissfon'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 public.
Date: December 22, 1980
~
.