ML20003H404
| ML20003H404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003H401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105050798 | |
| Download: ML20003H404 (2) | |
Text
. A rtig
~k UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
\\pov/
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 35 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC OMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1' DOCKET NO. 50-272 Introduction While Salem Unit 1 was operating nomally on January 27,1981 the No.11 Containment Fan Coil Unit was declared inoperable so that a lesking spool piece in the service water line to this unit could be replaced (References 1 and 2). The service water leak was outside of containment. ~
Action Statement 3.6.2.3 of the Salem Unit 1 Radiological Technical Specifi-cations requires that if one group of containment cooling fans becomes inoperable the inoperable fan group must be restored to operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or the plant shall be in hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The same Technical Specification for Salem Unit 2 requires that such an inoperable fan must be restored to operable status within 7 days.
When it became apparent to the licensee that the inoperable unit could not br repaired within 72 hourc, the licensee requested, by telecepy dated January 20, 1981, an expedited change to make this Technical Specification for Unit 1 read the same as for Unit 2 (Reference 3). After reviewing this request, we approved it verbally on January 30, 1981 to authorize additional time before the plant was taken to the " Hot Standby" mode of operation. Our verbal autoorization was confimed by letter dated January 30,1983 (Reference 4).
The liceasee confimed its telecopy by letter dated Jan0ary 30,1981. This Safety Evaluation documents our review.
On March 9,1981 (Reference 5), the licensee femally requested this Technical Specification change, citing a need for consistency between the two facility's Technical Specifications and overall improved operating' flexibility.
Evaluation The Containment Cooling System for the two units are similar with respect to power feeds and service water.
The cooling systems are composed of five fan cooler units and two containment spray systems for each unit. The cooling system components are grouped on three emergency buses such that the failure of any one bus will leave over 100". cooling capacity available..
2-Summary 1
The proposed Technical Specification change will conform to the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications which have previously been reviewed and approved by the staff. Therefore, we find the proposed change acceptable.
Environmental Consideration Ue have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will rot result in any signiffrant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insig-nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed abo.ve, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents prsviously considered and does not involve a signi_ficant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involvo 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 amend.nent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
References 1.
LER 81-11/03L, dated February 19, 1981.
2.
LER 81-10703L, dated February 19, 1981'.
3.
Letter from Public Service Electric cnd Gas Company to,N,RC (R~. A. Uderitz to Director, NRR), dated January 30, 1981.
4.
Letter from NRC to public Service Electric and Gas Company (T. M. Novak to F. W. Schneider), dated January 30, 1981.
5.
Letter from Public Service Electric and Gas Ccapany to NRC (R. A. Uderitz to Director, NRR), dated March 9,1981.
Dated:
APR 2 21981
-"*-9a-
+e
- ' '"--