ML20070K157
| ML20070K157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070K155 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212290530 | |
| Download: ML20070K157 (3) | |
Text
.[
%4 UNITED STATES
- p.
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.15 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75
~
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARTA~PT)WER ANDTIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELETTRIC COMP 3NY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311 Introduction By Amendment No.14 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, issued October 22, 1982, the dates of a number of 18-month surveillance items required by Technical Specification 4.0.2(b),
were deferred until the first refueling outage for this unit. The first refueling is scheduled to begin on January 22, 1983.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) has subsequently notified the staff, by telecopied letter dated December 2, 1982, that another 18-month surveillance item has been identified that,through administrative oversight, had not been included in the list covered by Amendment No. 14. The 18-month (plus 25 percent) interval for this requirement expires on December 5,1982. This surveillance relates to inspection of the reactor coolant pump fire protection deluge system. The licensee requests that the applicable Technical Specification (4.7.10.2.c) be deferred on a one-time basis to permit operation until the first refueling outage, presently scheduled for January 22, 1983, i.e., 48 days.
Evaluation Technical Specification 4.7.10.2.c requires that spray and/or sprinkler systems for (a) Reactor Coolant Pump Lube Oil Systems and (b) Charcoal Filters be demonstrated operable by the following surveillance Technical Specification.
At least once per 18 months perform:
1.
A system functional test which includes simulated automatic actuation of the system and verifying that the automatic valves in the flow path actuate to their correct positions.
2.
A visual inspection of the dry pipe spray and sprinkler headers to verify their integrity, and 3.
A visual inspection of each nozzle's spray area to verify the spray pattern in not obstructed.
8212290530 821203 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
The licensee's difficulties in meeting the initial 18-month schedule has been discussed in the Safety Evaluation for Amendment No.14.
In brief, Unit No. 2 has had only a few hours down time during its first fuel cycle.
Consequently, there has not been a sufficient period of time when the plant was not operating to perform many surveillances that can only be made when the applicable components, such as the reactor coolant pumps, are accessible.
The charcoal filters can be inspected even when the plant is operating; therefore, this deferral in not pertinent to this part of the Technical Specification.
The licensee states that granting of the requested deferral does not pose an undue risk to the health and safety of the public since:
"The system components tested in the functional test (Item 4.7.10.2.c.1) are subjected to other, more frequent surveillance to ensure system operability. The position of each valve in the flow path is verified at least once per 31 days.
" Inaccessibility of most of the spray header piping (Item 4.7.10.2.c.2) makes tampering with this part of the system unlikely.
"The purpose of the visual inspection of each nozzle's spray pattern is not obstructed. However, since the reactor coolant pumps are inaccessible during normal operations, inadvertent obstruction of the spray area within the enclosure surrounding the lube oil system on each pump is highly improbable."
We agree that the licensee's justification is valid and an acceptable level of protection has been provided during the past 22.5 months (18 months + 25%).
The requested extension constitutes an additional period of approximately 1.5 months. On this basis, the proposed extension does not involve a signif-icant decrease in the safety margin as defined in the " Bases" for Technical Specification 3.7.10.2 and is acceptable Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does 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 amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appralsal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
i
- Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the proba-bility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does 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 proposed manner, and (3) 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 or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 3, 1982 Principal Contributor:
W. Ross o
l 1
L