ML20011E049
| ML20011E049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E048 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002070131 | |
| Download: ML20011E049 (2) | |
Text
_
s9'
'i
^
$_ M00
,9 3[}T 9,o-
,.z f
UNITED STATES.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
s n
i 3,:
I-1 WASHING TON, o. C. 20555 e
%..v /
s SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RECULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DRP-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY l
DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY i
.i ATLAt! TIC CITY' ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATitlG STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311' 1.0. INTRODUCTION t
.By letter dated September 25, 1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company >
requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.
The proposed amendment would clarify the acceptance criteria for in-place testing of charcoal adsorbers and HEPA filter banks installed in the Control Room Emergency
. Air Conditioning System, Auxiliary Building Exhaust Air filtration Systen and Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System.
2.0 -EVALUATION CurrentSalem, Unit 2,technicalspecifications(TS), Sections 4.7.6.1.b.1, 4.7.7.b.2, and 4.9.12.b.2, do not directly contain the acceptance cri_teria a
for charcoal adsorber and HEPA filter bank surveillance tests. The current wording of the surveillance sections' indicate that the test procedures aodressed in Section C.5.a, C.5.c, and C.5.d of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52, Rev. 2, are to be used to conduct the in-place testing. RG 1.52, Sections.
C.5.c and C.5.d specify an acceptance criteria of:
penetration less than 0.05% for HEPA filter banks and bypass leakage through charcoal adsorber-sections less than 0.05%. Generic Letter 83-13, Clarification of Surveillance Requirements for HEFA Filters and Charcoal Adsorber Units in Standard Technical Specifications on ESF Cleanup Systems, dated March 2, 1983 provides clarification of the relationship between the guidance provided in RG 1.52; the~ testing requirements of the HEPA filters and charcoal adsorber units; and the NRC staff assumptions used in its safety evaluations for the ESF atmospheric cleanup systems. Generic Letter 83-13 states that a "0.05% value is applicable when a HEPA filter or charcoal adsorber efficiency of 99% is assumed, or 1% when a HEPA filter or charcoal adsorber efficiency of 95% or less is assumed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation.
(Use the value assumed for the charcoal adsorber efficiency if the value for the HEPA filter is different from the charcoal adsorber efficiency in the NRC staff's safety evaluation)."
900207o131 goo,39 DR
.p ADOCK 0500o313 PDC
e N O -...
k, 8' --
The NRC staff's safety evaluation assumes a charcoal adsorber efficiency of at least 90% for elemental and methyl iodines at: rated flow. The-assumption for HEPA filters is at least 99% removal. These values are reflected in the updated. Final Safety Analysis Report for Salem 1 and 2.
Based on the above, the appropriate acceptance criteria for charcoal adsorber units and HEPA filters should be 1%. The licensee has proposed to incorporate these acceptance criteria into the Salem Unit 2 TS. This will also bring Salem Unit 2 TS into agreement with the Salem Unit 1 TS.
The staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment-involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a fecility 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 amendment involves no 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation-exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal-Register (54 FR 51261) on December 13,-1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey.did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) 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 nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: James Stone Dated:
January 30, 1990
-