ML20217K826
| ML20217K826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217K816 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805040146 | |
| Download: ML20217K826 (4) | |
Text
- "'%
g
+4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30815 0001
- %~.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.1onTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By [[letter::LR-N970639, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,revising SR 4.8.1.1.2.d.2 Proposed in Util 960925 Submittal Re EDG Testing|letter dated October 29,1997]], as supplemented on January 27,1998, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would provide a one-time change to TS 3/4.4.6, " Steam Generators," to require that the next inspection be performed within 24 months from initial criticality for fuel cycle 10, or during the next refueling outage, whichever is first for fuel cycle 10. In addition, the proposed change would eliminate a description of an attemate steam generator tube sampling plan that was applicable only during the fourth refueling outage. The January 27,1998, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Backaround An inservice inspection of the Salem Unit 2 steam generator tubes was completed in May 1996.
The steam ganerators were then placed in wet lay-up because Salem Unit 2 was expected to be shutdown for an extended period of time. On August 17,1997 (over a year later), the licensee started up Salem Unit 2 and entered operational Mode 2.
On the basis of the surveillance test requirements of TS 3/4.4.6, the next Salem Unit 2 steam generator tube inspection would be required to be performed within 24 months after the previous inspection. This would require a steam generator tube inspection by May 1998. Since the current Unit 2 fuel cycle (cycle 10) is expected to end approximately February 1999 (an 18-month fuel cycle), the current TS would require a mid-cycle outage solely to perform the steam generator tube inspection.
9805040146 980319 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
\\
2 l
The licensee proposed a one-time amendment to the Salem Unit 2 TSs to change the steam generator tube inspection schedule to require the next steam generator inspection within 24 months of Mode 2, or during the next scheduled refueling outage, whichever is first, for fuel cycle 10. In essence, this TSs change modifies when the steam generator inspection interval begins.
)
, 2.2 Chance to the insome%n Interval The licensee addressed several technical areas in support of the proposed license amendment request. They are as follows: 1) steam generator tube inspection in May 1996; 2) steam geners. tor lay-up in accordance with industry guidelines; and 3) leakage history, leakage monitoring and leakage guidelines.
The licensee stated that an extensive eddy current inspection of steam generator tubes was performed in May 1996. This included bobbin coil examination of 100% of in-service tubes, and extensive rotating pancake coil (RPC) probe inspections of tube sheet transitions, tube support '
plate intersections and special interest areas. In addition, the licensee performed an assessment of the structural and leakage integrity of the steam generator tubing which justified a full cycle of operation for the Salem Unit 2 steam generators. The NRC staff previously reviewed the May 1996 inspection scope, results, and structural and leakage integrity assessment, and concluded that a full cycle of operation for Salem Unit 2 was justified. This review is documented in a letter dated October 30,1996, from William H. Ruland of the NRC to Leon R. Eliason of PSE&G, titled, " Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50 272/96-10 and 50-311/96-10."
Following the May 1996 steam generator inspection, the licensee placed the steam generators in wet lay-up in accordance with industry guidelines prescribed for that purpose. During the lay-up, the steam generators were maintained at reduced temperatures and with water chemistry i
conditions that should prevent further degradation of steam generator tubes.
The licensee stated that should unforseen circumstances cause steam generator tube leakage.
there are multiple methods available to monitor primary-to secondary leakage through the steam generators. The licensee employs radiation monitors in the condenser air ejector, the steam
}
generator blowdown line, the condensate polishing filter and the main steam line in addition, i
main steam line Nitrogen-16 (N-16) monitors are installed, which significantly enhance monitoring i
of main steam line activity. The licensee also indicated that there had been no measurable steam generator leakage since the August 1997 plant startup. In addition to the Salem Unit 2 TSs leakage limits, the licensee utilizes more conservative administrative leakage guidelines, which are documented in a plant procedure. These guidelines require various licensee actions
- (e.g., increased frequency of chemistry sampling, shutdown, etc.) before even reaching the TSs steam generator leakrate limits.
Typically, the amount of time between the completion of a tube inspection and plant startup is negligible. Therefore, the 24-month TSs inspection interval mainly transpires during the period of full power operation. In the case of Salem Unit 2, cycle 10, the time between the inspection and startup was more than one year. Assuming appropriate wet lay-up conditions are maintained, tube degradation is not expected to occur in this time frame. On the basis of the results of the extensive eddy current examination and the structural and leakage integrity assessment, the Salem Unit 2 steam generators are expected to operate satisfactorily for the entire fuel cycle 10.
t 1
-3 Because of the wet lay-up program and the current operating cycle leakage history, it does not appear that the steam generators degraded during the extended shutdown period. Lastly, if leakage were to occur, the leakage monitoring capability and leakage guidelines would enable operators to take necessary actions within an acceptable timeframe. Therefore, the proposed change should not impact the Salem Unit 2 steam generator's ability to safely and reliably operate for the entire fuel cycle.
2.3 Elimination of Altemate Steam Generator Tube Samolina Pjan During the Salem Unit 2 fourth refueling outage, the TSs were modified to incorporate an altamate steam generator tube inspection sampling plan which was applicable only to the fourth refueling outage. The licensee is now proposing elimination of this attemate steam generator tube inspection sampling plan. This is essentially an editorial modification and does not change the intent of the Salem Unit 2 TSs, and therefore, the NRC staff finds that the change acceptable.
2.4 Summary On the basis of the preceding evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee's proposed one-time change to the steam generator tube inspection interval and elimination of the refueling outage 4 attemate steam generator tube sampling plan are acceptable. The associated proposed technical specification wording changes are as follows:
- 1. TS 4.4.6.3.s is revised to allow the cycle 10 steam generator tube inspection interval to begin at Mode 2.
- 2. TS Page 3/4 4-15a is revised to a) eliminate the attemate steam generator tube sampling plan, and b) insert a detailed description of the proposed change to the steam generator inspection interval to require the next steam generator inspection for Unit 2, fuel cycle 10, to be performed within 24 months of Mode 2, or during the next scheduled refueling outage, whichever is first.
The staff has reviewed the TS changes discussed above and finds that they are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission'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
1 l
S 4
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.
j
5.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission has 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 i
'l operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the l
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: C. Boardslee Date: March 19, 1998 I
l l
l I
D e