ML20092J172
| ML20092J172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092J155 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509210361 | |
| Download: ML20092J172 (3) | |
Text
-
, - -..~ - - -
~ -. -.. -.
l*.
i M "84 9
7 I+, -
UNITED STATES
)
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 200eH001 g
4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION' RELATED TO AMENOMENT NOS. 176 AND 157 TO FACILITY OPERATING
~
LICENSEN5S.DPR-70ANDDPR-75 j
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY l
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY e
l DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC CONPANY i
SALEN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i
j DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated September 20, 1994, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company i
j (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating i
Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested 1
changes would change the Channel Functional Test surveillance frequency for the Manual-Reactor trip switches and Reactor Trip Breakers (RTB) and relocate the RTB maintenance requirements from the TS to the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
In addition to the changes in the surveillance test
{
frequency, there are several editorial and notational changes for consistency and standardization in the nomenclature.
I 2.0 EVALUATION f
Presently the TS for both Salen Units require that channel functional testing i'
of Manual Trip Switches be performed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to each start-up.
The proposed change is to perform the channel functional test only in the refueling outage. This change of test interval reduces the potential for inadvertent actuation of the plant protective system and is in accordance with the new improved Westinghouse Standard Technical Specification, NUREG-1431 and is, therefore, acceptable.
i Similarly, the Salem TS require channel functional testing of reactor trip breakers within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to each start-up, once every month, and once every refueling outage. The proposed change deletes the requirement of 4
testing the channel within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to each start-up and changes the channel monthly test requirement to at least every 62 days on a staggered test basis. These changes are also in accordance with NUREG-1431 and are, therefore,: acceptable.
9509210361 950918 "
4 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P.
PDR j
4 C
4 j.,
1 The anticipated transient without scram (ATSW) event that occurred at Sales on February 29, 1983, was primarily caused by inadequate maintenance of the RTBs.
The plant TS do not normally include preventive maintenance requirements i
during power operation. However, in order to improve the RTB reliability and i
' availability, and to minimize the possibility of ATWS recurrence at-Salem, the i
NRC staff required that a semi-annual preventive maintenance of the RTBs be j
incorporated in the Salem TS.. The proposed relocation of the RTB maintenance requirement from the TS to the Salem FSAR will allow flexibility in re-evaluating the effectiveness and adequacy of the maintenance activity and l
j soptimize maintenance practice without an unnecessary change of the plant TS l
and an amendment request by the licensee. The Commission has provided 1
= guidance for the contents of TS in its " Final Policy Statement on Technical i
]:
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors" (" Final Policy
' Statement"), published in the Federal Reaister on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132),
in which the Commission' indicated that compliance with the Final Policy Statement satisfies 1182a of the Act.
In particular, the Commission indicated that certain items could be relocated from the TS to licensee-controlled documents. Consistent with this approach, the Final Policy Statement j
identified four criteria to be used ip determining whether a particular matter i
is required to be included in the TS.
The RTB maintenance requirement does i
not fall within any of the four criteria set forth in the Commission's Final i
Policy Statement discussed above.
In addition, the staff finds that sufficient regulatory controls exist under 10 CFR 50.59. Accordingly, the staff has concluded that these requirements may be relocated from the TS to the licensee's FSAR.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official j
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i 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 4
i that the. amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no i
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
'The Commission recently adopted amendments to 10 CFR 50.36, pursuant to which the rule was revised to codify and incorporate these criteria.
See Final Rule, " Technical Specifications," published in the Federal Reaister l-July 19,1995 (60 FR 36953). The Commission indicated that reactor core isolation cooling, isolation condenser, residual heat removal, standby liquid control, and recirculation pump are to be included in the TS under Criterion 4, although it recognized that other structures, systems and components could also meet this criterion.
Federal Reaister citation (60 FR 36956).
l l
f i
9 -
proposed. finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 55890). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for i
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR SI.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.
^
5.0 CONCLUSION
I 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 j
- 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.
1
' defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: I. Ahmed Date:
September 18, 1995 4
9 t
e 4
<