ML20127M660
| ML20127M660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127M654 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507010318 | |
| Download: ML20127M660 (2) | |
Text
,8 UNITED STATES g
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
- j WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555
- .+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 38 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET N0. 50-311 Introduction On October 15, 1984, Public Service Electric and Gas Company submitted an amendment request to revise Unit 2 Technical Specification requirement 4.6.2.2.d to read "at least once per 5 years by verifying a sodium hydroxide (Na0H) solution flow rate of 12 3 gpm from the spray additive tank through sample valve 2CS61 with the spray additive tank at 2.5 0.5 psig."
Presently, a flow of 7.3 0.7 gpm is specified.
Evaluation and Sumary During testing in late 1980, a flow value of 11.9 gpm was recorded for Unit 1 and 12.5 gpm for Unit 2.
These values exceeded the values of 7.3 0.7 gpm specified in the Technical Specification for each Unit.
Since the intent of the test is to verify that there is no flow obstruction between the tank and the sample valve, the "as found" results were evaluated by PSE&G and found to be satisfactory. The PSE&G review is documented in Safety Evaluation SGS/M-SE-074 Rev. 1.
The Unit 1 Technical Specification was changed to 12 3 gpm through Amendment No. 29.
The Unit 2 Technical Specifications were at that time in draft form. This item, along with many others, was discussed at meetings with the staff to finalize the Unit 2 Technical Specifications, but was not implemented with the original issue of the Unit 2 Technical l
Specifications.
Amendment No. 29 for Unit I concluded that the technical i
specification change was acceptable because the design objectives for early and subsequent pH from the Na0H addition to the containment spray system would still be met. Thus, with the change in flow rate the Na0H will be ncre capable of scrubbing elemental iodine than assessed in the SER during both the early and late phases of an accident involving the release of such fission products. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the l
specifications change is acceptable.
1 Environmental Consideration Thu amendment involvas a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents 8507010318 850613 PDR ADOCK 05000311 l
P PDR
, 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(gibility criteria such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli 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 this amendment.
Conclusion We have 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
June 13,1985 Principal Contributor:
D. Fischer L
9
$