ML19351F235
| ML19351F235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351F234 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101120026 | |
| Download: ML19351F235 (2) | |
Text
[
UNITED STATES I f. y[ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/. E WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 4y '
s,.,/y:
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAlt REACTOR REGULATION REUTEu TG MEu0 MENT NO. 29 TO FALILITY CPERATING LICENSE NO. UPR-70 PU6LIC SEW ICE ELECTRIC AND GnS CONPANY, PHILAutLPHIA LLECTRIC LOP.PANY, DELPMVA PUWEH ANU LIGHT COMPAfiY, AND ATLAaTIC LITY ELECTRIC COMPnNY SALEM NUCLEAR GEhERATING STATION, UNIT NO. I DOCKET a0.60-272 Introduction By letter dated December 11, 1980, the licensee requested changes to Technical Specification 4.6.2.2.d.
The change relates to base data for a five year surveillance test of the Containment Spray System.
The licensee advised that a test was conducted recently at the end of the first five-year test interval. Results do not reproduce the original test data. The licensee has determined that the original data base should be replaced with a new data base. Because of the plant schedular reasons, the licensee requests our expedited action to revise the base test data of the specification to allow plant heatup for further post-refueling testing.
Discussion and Evaluation The Containment Spray Additive System is used in the unlikely event of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). A sodium hydroxide (Na0H) solution, when educted into the containment spray system ensures that:
(1) the iodine removal efficiency of the spray water is maintained because of the increase in pH value, and (2) corrosion effects on components within containment are minimized.
To assure system operability certain surveillance requirements are periodically checked. At each five-year interval, Specifications 4.6.2.1.d and 4.6.2.2.d are done. The licensee reports that Specification 4.6.2.1.d was accompli.e satisfactorily.
This test verifies a spray additive tank eductor flow rate to each containment spray system with the spray pump operating in the recirculation mode. Specification 4.6.2.2.d, is intended to show that the lines from the spray additive tank to the sample valve 2CS61 have an acceptable pressure drop. The base data now in the Technical Specifica-tions were provided by the 1icensee during the pre-1icensing Technical Specification reviews. Data was taken from pre-operational tests.
8 2 0 7 I e con
2-1 The licensee advised that test data taken for the first five-year interval do not duplicate the earlier test data. The licensee states that the data cannot be duplicated due to a lack of documentation for the original test methods. On this basis, the licensee has proposed that the current testing method and resulting data be used as the new base data for subsequent surveillance tests.
Further, the licensee has agreed to pro-vide the flow eductor operational curves to us for further review.
On the basis of our review, we conclude that the new test method and resulting new base data will be acceptable for Salem Unit No.1.
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 enviramnental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environnental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(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)
I 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:
Decenber 11, 1990 l
l l
l
_