ML20205J871
| ML20205J871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205J864 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602260602 | |
| Download: ML20205J871 (2) | |
Text
o,,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
- =
+0 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 71 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.'DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELEGIRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-272 INTRODUCTION In a letter dated August 6,1985, the licensee requested that the Technical Specifications for Salem Unit 1 be changed to pemit power operation at the 2% higher power level of 3411 Mwt permitted for Unit 2.
The current power limitation for Unit I results from the reduced capacity of the main turbine coupling that was originally installed on the plant. The coupling has now been modified to allow Unit No. I to operate at higher power levels.
EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
Salem Unit Nos. I and 2 are essentially identical. They share a comon FSAR.
The analyses of all design basis transients and accidents as well as the steady state themal hydraulic analyses in the FSAR were all perfomed at'
?
the higher power level of Unit 2.
Design limitations initially prevented Unit I 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 detemined 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 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 pemit the power upgrade and the flow setpoint change is for consistency with the combined Unit I and 2 FSAR. We conclude the changes are acceptable.
2260602 860206 p
ADOCK 05000272 PDR
2-ENVIRONMENAL CONSIDERATION This amendrent involves a change in the installation or use o'f 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 that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Conmission 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.
y CONCULSION 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 common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: February 6,1986 E
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
W. Jensen o
O
--r 4
-~ - _.
.s e-
,