ML20054E383
| ML20054E383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E376 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206110156 | |
| Download: ML20054E383 (2) | |
Text
I l
[
UNITED STATES f
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
)
wasHWGToN, D. C. 20606 e
o....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 44 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEU4ARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION,' UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2_
DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 J
)
Introduction i
l The current Technical Specification 4.5.2.d for both Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 requires that the automatic interlock and isolation action of the RHR System from the Reactor Coolant System be verfied'once per 18 n'onths when the Reactor Coolant System is above 580 psig.
By letter dated May 17, 1982 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the 1fcensee) requested that L
the frequency of this verification action be revised to each time the RHR l
System is placed in service for cooling the Reactor Coolant System.
~
Background
Technical Specification 4.5.2.d requires the testing of valves RH1 and RH2 on each unit to verify that these valves provide an acceptable pressure boundary between the high pressure Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and the low pressure Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System. Previously,18 months has been 3
considered an acceptable interval for verifying that these valves will remain p
closed when the RCS pressure is greater than 580 psig and can be opened when y
the RCS is less than 580 psig. The licensee prefers to t'est these valves each time the RHR system is placed in operation for two reasons. First, the change will provide increased assurance that the isolation and interlock functions associated with these valves will be operable during the modes of operation when RHR isolation could be required. Second,.the change will prevent the plant from requiring a cold shutdown fo,r only the purpose of meeting an 18 month scheduled surveillance.
l!
8206110156 820525 l!
PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
..=
=
---. x
i t
s Evaluation i
The staff recognizes the undesirability of verifying the functions of isolation valves RH1 and RH2 when the RCS pressure is greater than 580 psig because of potential damage to the RHR system and a loss of reactor coolant event. The 18 months schedule was set to approximate one fuel cycle. The itcensee's proposal will undoubtedly result in several verifications per fuel cycle. The proposal requires a test to be made within 7 days before the valves are to be opened to actuate the RHR system.
The potential for an overpressurization of the RHR system willbe minimized by verifying the two valves will close upon insertion of a test signal corre-sponding to a RCS pressure of 1580 psig and cannot be opened upon insertion of a test signal corresponding to a RCS pressure of 2.580 psig.
Inasmuch as the proposed surveillance frequency provides a more frequent and an improved verification, it is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendnents do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
f Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1)
J because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability
)
or consequences of sccidents previously considered and do not involve a j
significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do 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 1
proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be. conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
3 Date: May 25,1982 Principal Contributor:
W. Ross e
N l
l
-,.u-.
_- ______ ;___ _ _ 3
=
.y.__
,