ML19345F641
| ML19345F641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F640 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180756 | |
| Download: ML19345F641 (2) | |
Text
a UNITED STATES y g ('i k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
g Q sE W ASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
\\.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70
+
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, s
DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT C0l'iAHY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-272 Introduction By letter dated November 28, 1980 we issued Amendment No. 27 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1.
This amend-ment, in part, revised the Radiological Technical Specification to add new sur-veillance and testing requirements for the high and low head safety injection systems. Subsequently, by letter of December 19, 1980 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) requested that two flow rate specifications be reviewed further in light of new information and relief be given, until the next refueling outage, for denonstration of the baseline conditions required to meet the stated flow conditions.
Evaluation 1.
Lot Head Safety Injection System
~
The new specification for demonstrating adequate flow in this system required that the sum of the injection line flow rates, excluding the line with the highest flow, should be >463 gpm. This flow rate was the number used in the ECCS analysis and l
was the rate determined to be appropriate during the licensing review for Salem Unit 2.
A review of the original startup data by the licensee shows that an actual value after flow balancing was 453 gpm. This decrease of 10 gpm has been shown by Westinghouse to result in a potential peak clad temperature (during a small break LOCA) of 1475"F rather than the 1465 F temperature used in ECCS analysis.
We agree with Westinghouse and the licensee that this 10*F increase is not signi-ficant and 1475 F is within an acceptable range. We, therefore, approve the change in Technical Specification 4.5.2.h.l.a to read > 453 gpm. The licensee will be ii required to verify this flow rate through balance tests during the next refu'eling l
outage.
2.
Hiqh Head Safety Injection System The new Technical Specification 4.5.2.h.2.a requires that the sum of injection flow rates, excluding the line with the highest flow rate, is >346 gpm. As the result 6 02180 %
ATTACHENT TO LICENSE AMENDENT NO. 35 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 DOCKET NO. 50-272 t
Revise Appendix A as follows:
Remove Pages Insert Pages 3/4 5-Sa 3/4 5-Sa f
l.
t 2
of its review of origir.al plant start-up data the licensee found that the measured flow from each charging pump was less than 346 gpm.
Recent Westinghouse calculations of the performance of two of these pumps indi-cate that both should exceed the required output.
The licensee provided performance curves to justify this position. We accept these curves as being sufficiently accurate to allow ths licensee to delay verification of the actual flow balance characteristics of this system until the next refueling outage.
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 environmental impact. Having made this deternination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environnental 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 public.
Date: January 27, 1981 i
i l
li
7590-01.
The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or i
negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated December 19, 1980, (2) Amendment No.
to License No. DPR-70, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Salem Free Public Library,112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 27th day of January F
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
E
.)
(
arg, Ch S even Operatin Reactors B nch #1 Division of Licensing
.