ML20094D420
| ML20094D420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094D408 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9511030364 | |
| Download: ML20094D420 (3) | |
Text
. _ _
l l
%q A%
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4001
\\*****/
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.178 AND 159 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 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 30, 1995, as supplemented August 18, 1995, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would eliminate the defined term CONTROLLED LEAKAGE, remove Controlled Leakage flow from the Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and establish a new Seal Injection Flow LCO. The August 18, 1995, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination nor the original Federal Regjjtat notice.
2.0 EVALUATION The reactor coolant pumps (RCP) provide sufficient forced circulation flow through the core to ensure heat transfer to prevent exceeding the minimum departure from nucleate boiling ratio. Among its many components, the RCP has a seal assembly that is cooled by controlled leakage from the high head safety injection system.
Currently, the TS define the controlled leakage as: " CONTROLLED LEAKAGE shall be that seal water from the reactor coolant pump (RCP) seals." The Westinghouse Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) flow calculation is based on the injection flow path, i.e. the flow into the seal. This analysis limits the ECCS flow that can be diverted from the injection path following an ECCS actuation.
The analysis takes into consideration the known line pressure and flow to establish the line resistance which is the basis for the flow limit.
9511030364 95103o PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
,.. L o 1
i Since the current TS measures the seal leakoff, a seal injection flow path with slightly lower resistance values could occur, allowing a greater flow to be diverted from the injection path than the diverted flow assumed in the ECCS analysis. The licensee is therefore proposing to modify the TS to restrict seal injection flow rather than seal leakoff flow.
The proposed changes more clearly reflect the assumption concerning RCP seal flow diversion that was used in the Salem accident analysis related to ECCS operation. Therefore, the staff finds these changes acceptable.
The August 18, 1995, letter contained two typographical errors which are being corrected with the issuance of these TS changes. The phrase "the limit with" 4
and the. symbol "2" were inadvertently omitted from the Action Statement in the LC0 3.5.4.
Thus, the corrected Action Statement reads as follows:
"With seal injection flow not within the limit, adjust manual seal injection throttle valves to give a flow within the limit with the charging pump discharge pressure 2 2430 psig and the charging flow control valve fully open within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, or be in at least HOT STANOBY.within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />."
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official 4
l was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official responded by letter dated June 12, 1995, and supported the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
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 (60 FR 24918). 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.
o..
i
_3 4
5.0 CONCLUSION
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.
1 I
Principal Contributors: S. Brewer
~I C. Moon Date:
October 30, 1995 l'
l 1
i t
l l
a *
, -