ML20198B620
| ML20198B620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Salem |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198A170 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-203 NUDOCS 8605220066 | |
| Download: ML20198B620 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
t NOV 2 E 1985 ENCLOSU' E 1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE PWR-A REACTOR SYSTEMS BRANCH The licensee for Salem Unit I requested Technical Specification changes permitting the core nuclear power of Unit 1 to be increased by 2% to the level of Unit 2.
The current maximum core power of Unit 1 is 3338 Mwt whereas the maximum core power of Unit 2 is 3411 Mwt. The reactor coolant pumps of both units add 12 Mwt so that the total thermal output of each plant is 3350 Mwt l
and 3423 Mwt.
l Salem Units 1 and 2 are essentially identical. They share a common FSAR. The analyses of all design basis transiants and accidents as well as the steady state thermal hydraulic analyses in the FSAR were all preformed at the higher power level of Unit 2.
Design limitations initially prevented Unit 1 from being operated at the higher power level of Unit 2.
The principal consideration was the lower capacity of the Unit 1 main turbine coupling. Another factor was the lower drainage capacity from the moisture separators within the steam generators of Unit 1.
Both the coupling and the moisture separators have been upgraded to the Unit 2 capacity. The licensee and Westinghouse, the plant vendor, evaluated all the significant plant components for both units and determined that they were identical or functionally identical. No additional safety analyses were required. The staff concludes that Salem Unit I can be safely
~
operated at the maximum core power level of Unit 2 which is 3411 Mwt.
The licensee' requested three technical specification changes. These increase i
rated thermal power, increase Tavg for the DNB parameters by 1*F and reduce the reactor trip system loop flow setpoint by 1.4%.
The first two changes permit the power upgrade and the flow setpoint change is for consistency with s
the combined Unit I and 2 FSAR. We conclude these changes are acceptable.
f 2
6 860418 CONNOR86-203 PDR
f ENCLOSURE 2 SALP INPUT The purpose of this enclosure is to document our evaluation of the licensee's performance during the Safety Evaluation Review. The following criteria from NRC Appendix 0516 are the only ones relevant to this evaluation:
1.
Approach to Resolution Technical Issues The licensee provided the required information to process this change request so that no additional information was required.
Rating:
Category 1 2.
Overall Rating Rating:
Category 1
+
O
i
~
NOV 2 E 1985 l
ENCLOSF E 1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE PWR-A REACTOR SYSTEMS BRANCH l
The licensee for Salem Unit I requested Technical Specification changes pennitting the core nuclear power of Unit 1 to be increased by 2% to the level of Unit 2.
The current maximum core power of Unit 1 is 3338 Mwt whereas the maximum core power of Unit 2 is 3411 Mwt. The reactor coolant pumps of both units add 12 Mwt so that the total thermal output of each plant is 3350 Mwt and 3423 Mwt.
Salem Units 1 and 2 are essentially identical. They share a common FSAR. The analyses of all design basis transients and accidents as well as the steady state thermal hydraulic analyses in the FSAR were all preformed at the higher power level of Unit 2.
Design limitations initially prevented Unit 1 from being operated at the
?
higher power level of Unit 2.
The principal consideration was the lower capacity of the Unit 1 main turbine coupling. Another factor was the lower drainage capacity from the moisture separators within the steam generators of Unit 1.
Both the coupling and the moisture separators have been upgraded to the Unit 2 capacity. The licensee and Westinghouse, the plant vendor, evaluated all the significant plant components for both units and determined that they were identical or functionally identical. No additional safety analyses were required.
The staff concludes th't Salem Unit 1 can be safely a
operated at the maximum core power level of Unit 2 which is 3411 Mwt.
The licensee' requested three technical specification changes. These increase rated thermal power, increase Tavg for the DNB parameters by 1 F and reduce the' reactor trip system loop flow setpoint by 1.4%.
The first two changes permit the power upgrade and the flow setpoint change is for consistency with s
the combined Unit I and 2 FSAR. We conclude these changes are acceptable.
ENCLOSURE 2 SALP INPUT
-The purpose of this enclosure is to document our evaluation of the licensee's performance during the Safety Evaluation Review. The following criteria from NRC Appendix 0516 are the only ones relevant to this evaluation:
1.
Approach to Resolution Technical Issues The licensee provided the required information to process this change request so that no additional information was required.
Rating:
Category 1 2.
Overall Rating Rating:
Category 1 2
i e
6
____-