ML20070K232
| ML20070K232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070K219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103180352 | |
| Download: ML20070K232 (3) | |
Text
-. _ - -
l
![p %,Io,,
UNITED STATES
... # n NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WA$HING ton. D. C. 20656
,,, *.... +,
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS 120 AND 10Q___TO FACILITY OPERATING LICE!!SE NOS. OPR-70 AND bPR-75 PUBLIC SG YICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPNIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
v letter dated December 21, 1990, Public Service Electric & Gas Company a
'&G) requested an amendment t; 4 cility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and
'5 for the Salem Generating Stat kn, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The proposed
...ents would change the power level requirement at which turbine o rspeed protection surveillance tests are performed.
Instead of specifying a power level, reference would be made to the turbine manufacturer's latest recommendations for power level requirements.
2.0 EVALUATION l
The Salem 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS), Section 4.3.4.2, currently state that surveillance tests shall be performed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of a* taining greater the or equal to 85% of rated power. Westinghouse has recommended to PSE&G that turbine valve testing be done at differing power levels, depending on how the turbine is operated. D e Salem 1 turbine is operated at full time partial arc adnission and the Salem P turbine is operated at full time full arc admission.
For Salem 1, operating at full time partial are admission, Westinghouse recommends that valve testin 85% of rated thermal power. g be performed at greater than or equal to This will prevent double shocking of the turbine during the conduct of these tests.
For Salem 2, operating at full time full arc admission, Westinnhouse recomends that valve testing be perforned prior to exceeding St% of rated thermal power. This will prevent excessive steam flow 11duced cyclic stresses of the control stage blading during the conduct of chese tests.
91031[ex.5'2 h,h> z72 3
PDR pt,R p
~-
I 2
Instead of specifying a specific power level for conduct of the turbine valve tests, PSE8G has proposed to reference the turbine menufacturer's recommendations in the TS.
This will allow the appropriate power level to be used should the manufacturer's reconmendations change.
Also, the TS did not cicarly state that the testing was only to be done following startup. As currently written the TS could be interpreted to require turbine valve testing whenever thermal power is increased to greater than or equal to 85% of Rated Thermal Power.
The proposed TS would now read "...(2) Following startup, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of attaining manufacturer's recommended power level for performing turbine valve testing...."
In addition, changes to the Bases, Section 3/4.3.4, Turbine Overspeed Protection, have been proposed to incorporate the differentes in the operating modes of the two turbines and reference to the tu?bine manufacturer's power icvel recommendation for turbine valve testing, ty referencing the manufacturer's recommendations for power level requirements for turbine valve tests, the turbine limits are being maintained. Surveillance tests of turbine valves are done during restart to provide assurance that any maintenance that may have been performed has not affected the operability of the valves.
The addition of the words "following startup" clarifies that and eliminates unnecessary testing of the turbine valves. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to Sections 4.3.4.2 and Bases Sections 3/4.3.4 to be acceptable.
3.0 EMYTRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted I
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The 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 offsite end that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that
(
the amandments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentaiimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
4 The Comissio:e nade a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 4871) on February 6,1991 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received ano the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.
l A
-~
o i
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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amenoments will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 11, 1991 PjicipalContributor!
James Stone f
r s
\\
i I
I l
i l
)
..