ML20153D552
| ML20153D552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153D540 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809020244 | |
| Download: ML20153D552 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
+
o UNITED STATES g
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
5 l
wAssiNotoN, o. c. 20sss
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 88 AND 61 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 GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 3, 1988, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and OPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendments would change Technical Specification (T/S) 4.8.2.5.2.e to remove the requirement to perfonn both a battery service test and a battery performance discharge test during certain plant shutdowns.
Under the existing battery surveillance, the licensee is required to perform:
- 1) The battery service test (T/S 4.8.2.5.2.d), which demonstrates if the battery will meet the design requirements (battery duty cycle) of the DC system. This test is performed as part of the preoperational and periodic DC system tests every 18 months during refueling, or whenever there is any DC system change.
- 2) The battery performance discharge test (T/S 4.8.2.5.2.e), which determines if the battery is still within acceptable limits relative to its original design capacity. This test is performed as a part of the battery acceptance test every 60 months (approx every third outage).
According to the above requirements, these tests have to be performed consecutively every 60 months. The licensee contends that the battery i
performance discharge test demonstrates whether the battery is within acceptable limits relative to its original design capacity as well as the original design requirements. Since the battery performance discharge test (60 month test) encompasses the battery service test, the licensee has concluded that a separate service test is not required at the interval when the discharge test is perfonced and has revised the Technical Specifications to that end.
In addition, the service test adds an extra week to the outage schedule.
8809020244 080829 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
PNV
e 2
2.0 EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the information and concurs with the licensee that the proposed change is acceptable and that it has no impact on the operability of the batteries.
In fact, the subject change is consistent l
with the existing standard T/S provision "once per 60 month interval, this i
performance discharge test may be perfomed in lieu of the battery service test." Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed T/S 4.8.2.5.2.e is acceptable.
t
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with raspect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR51.22(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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 28294) on July 27, 1988 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public coments were received and the State of New Jersey j
did not have any coments.
1 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of 4
the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Fischer i
Dattd:
August 29, 1988