ML20073A006
| ML20073A006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073A000 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409200066 | |
| Download: ML20073A006 (3) | |
Text
.
n:vq ye.
t UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 s,...../
r e
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AM MDMENT N05. 156 AND 137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 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 00CKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 12, 1994, as supplemented by letter dated July 15, 1994, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes in TS 4.8.1.1.2.d.7 would elimina n the required loss of offsite power (LOOP) plus an engineered safety feature actuation (ESF) signal test following the 24-hour endurance l
test, separate the hot restart test of emergency diesel generator (EDG) from the 24-hour loaded run test and add a new surveillance requirement of a simple hot restart test following a 2-hour loaded run of the EDG. The July 15, 1994, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
j The current Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.7 requires that within 5 minutes of shutting down the EDG following the 24-hour endurance test run that is done during refueling outages, a simulated LOOP in conjunction with an -
ESF signal surveillance test be conducted.
Performing the LOOP plus ESF test per the current TS requires the major ESF loads sequenced during LOCA to be available immediately following the 24-hour endurance run.
Coordination of the 24-hour endurance run with availability of the ESF systems, results in a scheduling burden because it may preclude modifications, maintenance and i
testing of ESF systems from being performed in parallel with the 24-hour endurance test.
This constraint on scheduling flexibility is estimated to cost a minimum of 2 days of critical path time per refueling outage, i
The licensee has proposed to separate the 5-minute hot restart test from the 24-hour endurance test, eliminate the requirement for the LOOP plus ESF test following the 24-hour loaded run and add a new surveillance requirement of a 9409200066 940908 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
'l
,.. simple hot restart test following a 2-hour loaded run of the EDG.
The revised surveillance requirement will verify EDG hot restart capability by starting the EDG and verifying that it attains rated voltage and frequency within the required time.
The proposed surveillance for the EDG hot restart test could be performed during any mode of plant operation.
Since the hot restart, LOOP plus ESF load sequence test, and 24-hour endurance test objectives will continue to be met at Salem, decoupling the tests would result in improved scheduling flexibility with no reduction in demonstration of EDG operability.
3.0 SPECIFIC CHANGES
- 1) Revise Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.8.1.1.2.d.7 to delete the requirement to perform SR 4.8.1.1.2.d.6.b within 5 minutes of completing the 24-hour endurance test.
- 2) Add SR 4.8.1.1.2.f, which would require an 18-month surveillance test to restart the EDG within 5-minutes of EDG shutdown after operating at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the continuous rating.
- 3) Delete the "***" footnote, which applies to the EDG hot restart to the EDG hot restart test presently required by SR 4.8.1.1.2.d.7.
4.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes would separate the hot restart test f.om the 24-hour full load test, delete the requirement for the LOOP plus ESF test following the 24-hour loaded run and add new SR 4.8.1.1.2.f that would add a surveillance test that would require restarting the EDG within 5 minutes after at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of operation at the continuous rating.
The hot restart test can be scheduled for a different time so as to alleviate test scheduling difficulties and the financial burden that would result from an extended outage.
The purpose of the EDG hot restart surveillance is to demonstrate functional capabilities of the EDG to restart from full load temperature conditions.
The new SR 4.8.1.1.2.f would provide adequate demonstration of restart capability of the
)
EDG from full load temperature conditions. This modified surveillance requirement of the EDGs has been examined and accepted by the NRC staff in the new improved Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1431.
Based on the above, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
1 In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
i
C:
. 6.0 EVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a 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 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 (59 FR 27066). 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
l 1
The Commission 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, (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:
- 0. Chopra Date:
September 8, 1994