ML20133Q407
| ML20133Q407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133Q391 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701280094 | |
| Download: ML20133Q407 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _
G City l
p t
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WA.8HINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.187 AND 170 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 October 1, 1996, as supplemented October 31, 1996, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would revise TS 3/4.7.1.5, " Main Steam Line Isolation Valves (MSIVs)," and TS 3/4.3.2, " Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation." These changes are needed to accommodate entry into Mode 2.
The proposed amendments would allow for the repair and testing of inoperable MSIVs in certain operating Modes, and would change the low steam line pressure trip setpoint value for safety injection to make it consistent with the previously approved value for steam line isolation. The October 31, 1996, letter proposed changes to provide greater consistency with the requirements of NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants," Revision 1.
These changes did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination i
or the Federal Reaister notice.
l 2.0 EVALUATION The safety function of the MSIVs is to close automatically in the event of a main steam line break or a malfunction that results in a secondary system l
depressurization. Because steam pressure of the Main Steam System assists valve closure, the MSIVs must be tested in higher modes in order to meet the 5-second closure time specified in TS 4.7.1.5.
The steam pressure on entry into Mode 3 is not sufficient to meet the 5-second closure time. However, TS
- .0.4 prohibits entry into an OPERATIONAL MGE unless the Surveillance Requirement associated with the Limiting Condition for Operation has been performed. Thus, the licensee proposed changes to TS 4.3.2.1.3, TS Table 4.3-2, and TS 4.7.1.5 that make the provisions of TS 4.0.4 not applicable to MSIV closure time testing. The staff agrees this change is necessary to accommodate MSIV closure time testing and therefore finds it acceptable.
9701280094 970117 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
I 4
1
- i The licensee also proposed a change to TS 3.7.1.5 to allow, with one MSIV inoperable in Mode 1, 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. to be in Mode 2.
The existing TS allowed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to be in HOT SHUTDOWN, Mode 4, with one MSIV inoperable in Mode 2.
Thus, the proposed change would allow a total of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> to be in HOT SHUTDOWN with one inoperable MSIV, an increase of 6' hours over the existing 1
TS. The licensee stated that the 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to be in Mode 2 is considered a i
reasonable amount of time, based on operating experience, to reach Mode 2 and j
to close the MSIVs in an orderly manner without challenging plant systems.
In response to an NRC concern, the licensee in its October 31, 1996, letter 3
j proposed additional changes to provide greater consistency with NUREG-1431.
The staff agrees that the times to reach Modes 2, 3 and 4 that were proposed
)
i by the licensee are reasonable, and therefore, the staff concludes that these changes are acceptable.
Furthermore, the staff finds that these changes meet i
the intent of NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse j
Pl ants. "
The licensee also proposed to delete footnotes from TS Table 3.3-5 and TS 4
4.7.1.5 that are no longer applicable. (There is a typographical error in i, Page 1 of 5, of the October 1,1996, letter which incorrectly states that this change is proposed for TS 4.7.6.1.5; rather, it should be TS 4.7.1.5.)
The staff considers these changes administrative in nature, and i
finds them acceptable.
l The licensee also proposed changes to TS Table 3.3-4 for the Trip Setpoint and
~
Allowable Value for Item 1.f, " Steam Flow in Two Steam Lines-- High Coincident with Tavg-- Low-Low or Steam Line Pressure-- Low" under the heading " SAFETY 4
j INJECTION, TURBINE TRIP AND FEEDWATER ISOLATION". By letter dated September 4, 1990, the licensee submitted proposed changes to TS Table 3.3-4 to revise i
the sara Trip Setpoint and A11cwable Value and it was incorporated into the TSs by Amendment 121 for Unit I and Amendment 101 for Unit 2, issued March 11, j
1991.
However, the changes in those amendments that were made to " Steam Flow in Two Steam Lines-- High Coincident with Tavg-- Low-Low or Steam Line Pressure-- Low" were only made under the heading " STEAM LINE ISOLATION" which is Item 4.d in Table 3.3-4.
Since the same signal inputs both " SAFETY l
INJECTION, TURBINE TRIP AND FEEDWATER" and " STEAM LINE ISOLATION", the Septerbec 4,1990, letter should have proposed changes to both Items 1.f and 4.d of "J Table 3.3-4.
Thus, the changes proposed in the October 1, 1996, j
letter are necessary to make Item 1.f of TS Table 3.3-4 consistent with the
~
plant configuration which bH been revised with the implementation of i
Amendments 121 and 101. TH:, staff finds these changes acceptable since they are needed to make the TSs consistent-with the actual plant configuration.
i
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
Thc 'Jtate official j
had no comments.
5 i
l-e i
-~
l l
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 and change the surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, i
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 (61 FR 55040). 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.
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 o, the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. 01shan i
Date: January 17, 1997 1
i 4
L,.
--