ML20093K238
| ML20093K238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093K235 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407310007 | |
| Download: ML20093K238 (2) | |
Text
'
f UNITED STATES
[ ] 3
,,y }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7;.'
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
-t t
a l
-O,f" u.,
lj SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
. l RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.56 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-70 I
AND AMENDMENT N0. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-75 i
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY j
PHILADELPHIA ELEGIRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELEGIRIC COMPANY 1
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 1
DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 INTRODUCTION i
On March 28, 1983, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted an amendment change request which would (1) add existing manual initiation functions for the auxiliary feedwater systems to the appropriate Engineered Safety Feature Tables in the Technical Specifications, and (2) change the Containment Systems Air Locks Surveillance requirement in the Technical Specifications. This change would reduce the air lock seal testing pressure, as allowed by a change in the regulations, for those cases where the air locks are being frequently opened. Specifically, the surveillance requirement would be changed to read:
"After each opening, except when the airlock is being used for multiple entries, then at least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, prove gasket integrity by pressurizing the volume between door gaskets to 10 psig and checking for an extrapolated seal leakage rate equal to or less than 0.01 La."
-lj The present test pressure is 47.0 psig, the peak accident pressure.
On February 6,1984, PSE&G submitted two pages of Technical Specifications that were inadvertently left out of the March 28, 1983 package.
EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
Change (1) adds the Manual Initiation function for the Auxiliary Feedwater System to the scope of the Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System instru-mentation. This action satisfies our position, requirement No. 5 of NUREG-0737 Item II.E.1.2, and responds to our letter dated December 22, 1982, where we requested that the manual initiation function be added to the
~
Technical Specifications. We have reviewed the specification changes to assure adequacy and conclude that the changes are acceptable, i
l 8407310007 840716 fDRADOCK 05000272 PDR m
,e c-w,
,e
--c, e
wpu,.--
m
- , w.
. n Change (2) would allow for air locks, a "between the seals test pressure" of 10 psig when testing for seal leakage during periods when the air locks are
~'
frequently opened. The present Technical Specifications require a test pressure of 47.0 psig which is the peak accident pressure.
10 CFR 50 Appendix J has recently been changed to allow test pressures other than the peak accident pressure to be substituted when testing air lock seal during periods of frequent openings. Since change (2) conforms to this change in the regulation, the staff has determined that the action is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
This amendment involves a change in the installation of use of a facility component located within the restricted area.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (or the Commission'has made a final no significant hazards consideration findin.g with respect to this amendment). Accordingly, this amendment meets the i
eligibility criteria for categorical. exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance i
of this amendment.
Conclusion
- t We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
i i (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 3-public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) 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.
Dated:
July 16,1984 Principal Contributors:
D. Fischer Y. Huang 1 ;
I l
,..,_...,._.___-,._._,,,,,,.y._,m,
,,_..v_.
..__,._...._-,_____,.____~_,.m-
-