ML20044G300
| ML20044G300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044G297 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306020297 | |
| Download: ML20044G300 (3) | |
Text
b "m
[a Qrc\\o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~,
n g
,i WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555
% o......*;
S SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 141 AND 120 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 l
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 18, 1993, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would revise TS Section 4.6.4.2, " Electric Hydrogen Recombiners" by:
changing both Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS Sections 4.6.4.2.a (6-month a.
surveillance) system functional test wording to more correct technique description and wording similar to the current Unit 2 TS.
b.
adding an asterisked note to both the Unit I and Unit 2 TS Sections 4.6.4.2.a stating that the requirements of the 6-month system functional test can be met by satisfactory completion of the more demanding 18-month system functional test when the tests fall due at or near the same time.
adding to the Unit 2 TS Section 4.6.4.2.b (18-month surveillance) the c.
system functional test described in the Unit 1 TS Section 4.6.4.2.b.3.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes would take the more conservative and technically accurate recombiner system requirements from both units' TS and combine them into a common set of requirements, providing consistency between the two units.
9306020297 930518 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
P s.
n
i
~
The Unit 2 TS Section 4.6.4.2.a is more correct in describing the technique used to verify the power meter reading during the 6-month surveillance requirement. The proposed change slightly revises the Unit 2 TS wording and replaces the wording in the Unit 1 TS, making the TS correct and consistent between the two units.
The asterisked note added to both Unit I and Unit 2 TS Sections 4.6.4.2.a would reduce unnecessary and duplicative cycling of recombiner equipment by taking credit for the 18-month surveillance requirements as also satisfying the 6-month surveillance requirements when both tests fall due at roughly the same time.
The Unit 1 TS Section 4.6.4.2.b.3 18-month surveillance requirement regarding verifying, during a recombiner system functional test, that the heater sheath temperature increases to 2 1200*F within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and is maintained for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, is not currently included in the Unit 218-month surveillance requirement.
Salem station is performing the surveillance on both Units.
i This change would make the Unit 2 TS more accurate and consistent with the Unit 1 TS, would officially require testing currently being performed, and would provide acceptance criteria (the same as is used on Unit 1) upon which to base test procedures for Unit 2.
The staff, with concurrence from the licensee by teleconference, made l
administrative changes to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.4.2.b.2.
The reference to "recombiner enclosures" was made consistent between Units 1 and 2.
This does not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
These proposed changes are consistent with requirements currently in the Salem Station TS, and are more restrictive than what the Westinghouse Standard TS require. The staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
l
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In _ accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official I
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
.)
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
1 The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a I
facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments -involve no significant increase in the amounts, _ and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released i
offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 8780). Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 the amendments.
s
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pbblic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
A. Pelletier Date: May 18, 1993 t
l
?
- s k
d i
-