ML20210K037
| ML20210K037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210K035 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604040525 | |
| Download: ML20210K037 (4) | |
Text
/*%g e
I O
UNITED STATES
. i.[s% -. ^3
- h
/.s E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wassiNoron, o. c. 20sss y v.:f e, q
pu
- ....J SAFETY EVAL'JATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEA3 PE*CTCP ?EGL'LATION FEL; qiTO :'egn E:T rg, 73 TO rAC'tITY cpE'tT!*:1 L tCE:.ST ta. P-70
" 3 t' E:; 'n! t 0, 48 70 F CILITY CPE ATI!:1 L:CE*:3E Id. C"-75 f
?UELIC SE0'."f,E ELECTRIC AG nA3 C0"?A*,Y Ph.LAStirHA ELECTPIC Q 9 A:a DELP% M A FDL.E? A;.9 lib.M CU;os:d. J':3 ATLA!.IIC Clit ELECTRIC CD:GP:t SaLEP. f UCLEAR GENERATION STATION, Ut:IT f;05.1 A*;D 2 00CKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Intrrductico i
i B/ letter fr:7 C.1. Mc'! sill, Jr., to the N;.C (ATIN:
S.
'.'a rg a ) d a t ed C:tober 15, 1985, Public Service El'ectric and Gas Company (PSEG) request M changes to Fa:ility Operating Licenses 07;t-70 ar.d CPR-75 for Sale, Generati :
Station Unit Nos. I ard 2.
The arend:ent request consists of chan;es t3 t"e Tech.ical Specificatices regarding the Analog P.od Ecsiticn Systs?.
E"aluatien and Sumrv The Technical Specifications for Westinghouse reactors typically requira the position of all control rods as indicated by positi:n indicaters (actual position) to be in agreement with group step counter demand pcsitier.s within
- 12 steps.
The 12 step requireTent refle:ts the a:cident analysis assumption that the rods can be misaligned by 24 steps, which conthti of an indicated 12 step rsisalignment with a 12 step uncertainty, A step is 5/5*.
Almost all of the Westir.; house reactors in operation use an anale; syste based en linear variable transformer detectors for the actual p:siti:n indication.
There has been a long history of Licensee Event Pep:rts concerning viclati:n of the :12 step require. Tent, particularly in the shute:wa c: des ar.d during p:wer ascension.
The difficulty lies in the character,istics cf the analog system,,,hich has a c:n-linear steady state response, a time-dependent response which is the result of terperature dependence, ar.d a r:sp r.se d?perden:e en wh2t5:r the last rod totien was a withtrawal er ar, f r.se rtion.
8604040525 960319]
22 PDR ADOCK O P
..~
The Technical Specification chinges proposed by PSEG incorporate most of the features of a solution to the problem-proposed'by' Westinghouse in a July 23, 1931 letter to PSEG. This letter was included in the present change request.
Basically, the change does three things:
(1) it renoves the requirement to caintain alignment in the central region of the core for the control rods which are either ful'ly inserted cr fully withdrawn in neraal operation, (2) it alloss an neur (to reach temperature equilibriut) after rod cotion before any :12 s,tep alignment is required and (3) it allows use of the demand counter position to indicate t;here the rods are in the shutdown redes. These are acceptable for the following reascns, respectively.
1.
The changed Specifications require operability of the analog position system and 12 step alignment for the shutdown banks and control bank A between 0-30 steps and 200-228 steps, control bank B between 0-30 steps and 160-223 steps and control banks C&D over the 0-228 step range. Since all the control rods except banks C&D are either fully withdrawn er fully inserted intthe normal operating modes, removal of position indication requirements in the mid range of their withdrawal only represents a transitory condition. The operator can verify the fully withdrawn or inserted position as before.
In addition, accident concerns for misaligned control rods are greatest in the power range, for which the above banks are not in the care. Therefore, no significant increase in accident consequences will arise free removal of position indication requirements in the midrange of the sh'utdown and A and B banks.
Needless reporting and operational delays should therefore be eliminated by this change.
2,.-
As indicated above, there are thercal effects which cause the analog position indicators to drif t following rod motion. Allowing an hour cf thermal soak following rod motion before 212 step alignment is required is acceptable because the probability of an accident occurring during this time is small. Besides, in general, the rods will not be misaligned.
Furthermore, requiring 212 step alignment when the thenral transient is in progress might result in greater inaccuracy in knowledge of the rod position than after the transient be:ause the instrument is known to be decalibrated while its ter:perature is changing. Other action statements regarding position indication and operability of the control rods also allow time for compliance of at least an hour.
1
. ~
3.
Unless separate calibrations of the analog position indicators were required, imposition of strict aligr. ment requireT2nts in medes 3,4, and 5
.is unnacessarily stringent. Because the demand step ccanters hava had excellcrt perferrcr.ce records in our ex;srience to dit:, u2 thereferu judge th2 dpTsrd ;csition ird! caters ta provid2 adec.nte indicati:a cf the lccatica of'the centrol rods ia thes: : des.
We reviewed the detailed Technical Specification changes submitted fnr Salem Units 1 and 2 and find they properly implement the modifications discussed above with nne exception: we did not agree with proposed Action A in Technical Specification 3.1.3.2.2 as submitted.
At our request, the licensee agreed to delete this option. With this modification, and for the reasons discussed above, we find the proposed Technical Specification changes acceptable, Ervircrrental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amcunts, 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there ha been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments m the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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 issuanc of these amendments.
5-1 1
Conclusion We have concludad, 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 coeration in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conductad in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comr.on defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 19, 1986 4
i Princical Contributor:
M. Dunenfeld I
l' e
Y 6
1 1
,.7,--
,em.,
>,e--,
n
.-w
-~v
,w
,-y,-,-,
v-w,-
mm -
r + - - -
gm-~-~n-,-