ML20217D429
| ML20217D429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D421 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804240313 | |
| Download: ML20217D429 (2) | |
Text
a4c og y-t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
I *g WASHINGTON, D.C. Snama annt
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO310TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-272
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 14,1997, as supplemented on March 26,1998, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revise TS 3.4.6.3, " Primary Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves Limiting Condition for Operation," to add additional pressure isolation valves, establish the operability and testing requirements for the pressure isolation valves, and make this section more consistent with Salem Unit 2 TSs. The March 26,1998, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The purpose of the pressure isolation valves is to ensure the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). These valves separate the high pressure RCS from piping systems that are rated at lower pressures than the RCS, minimizing the probability of an inter-system loss of coolant accident.
The proposed revision makes the Salem Unit 1 TS 3.4.6.3 more consistent with the corresponding Salem Unit 2 TS and more consistent with the intent of NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants," Revision 1 (Westinghouse STS). Providing more consistency between the two units is desirable from a human factors standpoint. Most of the changes are editorial in nature; however, the following three changes are rnore substantive:
(1) Eleven reactor coolant system pressure isolation valves have been added to Table 4.4-4.
(2) The current TSs require leak testing of the valves each time the plant is placed in cold shutdown for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> if testing has not been performed in the previous 12 months; the proposed revision changes the 12 months to 9 months.
9804240313 980420 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
l
. 1 (3) A requirement has been added to test any hot and cold leg injection valves in the residual heat removal (RHR) and safety injection (SI) systems and safety injection accumulator j
isolation valves within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following valve actuation due to automatic or manual action j
or flow through the valve.
l The proposed change adds valves to the list of pressure isolation valves in TG Table 4.4-4 that, although were included in the Salem inservice Test Program, were not covered by the TSs. The proposed change to the surveillance test requirement of TS 4.4.6.3.a.2 has been reduced from within the previous 12 months to a more conservative 9 month period that provides added assurance that the valves will maintain their isolation capability. Additionally, the new l
requirement to test the RHR and Si valves within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after actuation is an added requirement that is not currently in the TSs and is consistent with the Unit 2 TSs. The other changes involve formatting and rewording that the staff considers to be editorial in nature c.ad provides better clarification and consistency with the requirements that should be presented in tne Limiting Conditions for Operation, Action statements, and Surveillance Requirements.
Likewise the use of the word " OPERABLE" rather than " operational" provides a term that is defined in TS 1,18.
Therefore, the staff finds the proposed amendment acceptable because it (a) provides more consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2 TSs, (b) is more conservative than the existing TSs, and (c)is consistent with the intent of the Westinghouse STS.
l
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commiss,on's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes 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 changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 61845). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is I
reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by l
operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the j
l Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor: P. Milano Date: April 20,1998