ML20006A153
| ML20006A153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006A152 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9001250340 | |
| Download: ML20006A153 (3) | |
Text
. - - - _ _ _ _
~*'
e q,Ma c
[
?,,
UNITED STATES g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-wAssiNcToN. o. c. rosss
.....,/,
(-
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGI!LATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NDS.106 AND 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. OPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTP.1C & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCPPANY DELMARVA POWEP AtlD LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATIFG STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 LOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By. letter dated October 20,1989 Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Fecility Operating License Nos. OpR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendmentswouldremovetheprovisinnofSpecification4.0.2thatlimits the combined time interval of three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval. Guidance on this proposed change to TS was prnvided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 09-14, dated August 21, 1989.
2.0 EVALUATION Specification 4.0.2 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extenced by 25 percent nf the specified time interval.
This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillence at the specified time interval. Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillerce or maintenance activities.
Specification 4.0.2 further limits the allowance for extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 thes the specified time interval. The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenier.ce to provide an overall increase in the surveilicoce interval.
9001250340 900116 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
PDR i
E~
]
- c i
Experience has shown that the 18-motth surveillance interval, with the provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle. However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to l
the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to i
i perform these surveillances. Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the use of the 25-percent i
allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling i
outage basis, i
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time i
that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur 4
when transient plant operating conditions exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a surveillance. Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent i
allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 i
should be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive 1
surveillances with the following statement:
4.0.2 Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval.
In addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change and noted that it is not the intent of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that specified.
The licensee has proposed changes to Specification 4.0.2 that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14, as noted above.
On the basis of its review of this matter, the staff finds that the above changes to the TS for Salem Units 1 and 2 are acceptable.
The NRC staff, with the concurrence of the licensee, corrected typographical errors in the Technical Specification pages submitted by the licensee.
c a &.
L 3
i 3.0 ENVIROMMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a f acility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no i
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no signiY1 cant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments n.eet the elioibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 i
CFr 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentel impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
I i
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission rade a proposed cetermination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reaister(54FR51263)onDecember 13, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. Ne public coments were received and the State of New Jersey dio not have any coments.
The staff hes concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will rot be endangered by operation in the proposed ranner, ano (2) such activities will be conoucted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Thomas G. Dunning and James C. Stone, Dated:-
January 16, 1990
-. - ~,,
....--.-.--,---.-.w
.--., --, -