ML20236B216
| ML20236B216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B214 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710260015 | |
| Download: ML20236B216 (4) | |
Text
- - - _ _
, l...
y.
[ [....%'o, UNITED STATES k
g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
'E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 83 AND TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-70-AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGMT' COMPANY
. ATLANTIC CITY. ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAP GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 10, 1987, and supplemented by letters dated June 24, 1987, and July 9,1987, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment tn Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and
~
DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would increase the boron concentration' limits in the Refueling Water Storage Tanks and in the Accumulators. These changes j
are requested to accomodate the use of high energy, low leakage cores 1
for further reloads.
The licensee's supplementary submittals of June 24 and. July 9, 1987, were made.as a result of an NRC staff request to correct and clarify the language of the original submittal, and do not contain substantive changes.
2.0 EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
The following changes were proposed:
Inrrea m of the required RWST boron concentration range from 20/X -MOO ppm to 2300-2500 ppm - Units 1 and 2, Increase of the required Accumulator boron concentration range from 1900-2200 ppm to 2200-2500 ppm - Units'1 and 2, Increase Units 1 and 2 RWST MODE 5 and 6 required volume'from 9,690 gallons to 12,500 gallons, me
! Increase Units 1 and 2 maximum expected boration capability requirement from 75,000 gallons to 85,000 gallons (Basis only),
Change Unit MODE 1 thru 3 accumulated volume range from 6380-6657 to 6223-6500, Change Unit 1 Boric Acid Tank (BAT) baron concentration range from 20,100-21,800 to 20,000-22,500 ppm Baron, Change Unit 1 Boron Injection Tark (BIT) Roron concentration ronge from 20,100-21,800 to 20,000-22,500 ppm Baron, i
Change Unit RWST MODE 1 thru 4 required volume range from 36d,000-400,000 to 364,500-400,000 gallons, i
Changes on LCOs related to beat tracing requirements to make units consistent internally and with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
These changes affect Sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.10 of the Technical.
Specifications and associated bases. Preliminary Salem Unit 2 Cycle 4 core design calculations did not predict core subcriticality following a hypothesized large break LOCA based on borated water sources alone. Thus a safety evaluation with increased RWST and accumulator boron concentration was performed. This investigation done by Westinghouse and reviewed by PSE&G, used increased boron concentration ranges of 2300-2500 ppm vs 2000-2200 ppm for RWST and 2200-2500 ppm vs 1900-2200 ppm for the accumulators.
i The study evaluated and/or analyzed all incidents that could be impacted by these Technical Specification changes. These included:
Non-LOCA FSAR transients Small and Large Break LOCA Hot leg Switchover Time Calculation Sump and Spray pH, Hydrogen Production, Stress Corrosion, Radiological Consequences, and Boron Crystallization.
Non-LOCA FSAR Transients The transients evaluated were uncontrolled boron dilution, rupture of main steam line, major rupture of a main feedwater line, inadvertent operation of ECCS and accidental depressurization of the main steam system. For each of these postulated transients it was determined that the increase in boron concentration is bounded by the present FSAR analysis.
Small and large Break LOCA The proposed changes have no effect on the small break LOCA because the reactor core is brought suberitical by the trip reactivity of the control rods. The FSAR conclusions for large break LOCA are not changed as the reactor core is maintained subcritical from the time of accident until peak cladding temperatures are reached by the voids present in the core.
However, the increased boron concentration benefits the long term cooling phase and ensures post LOCA suberiticality.
a 1 l Hot Leg Switchover Time The analysis concludes that the hot leg switchover time'be changed from-22.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> following a LOCA. The emergency procedures must be changed to reflect the new time.
Spray and Sump pH, Hydrogen Production, Stress Corrosion and Radiological-Consequences New pH values were cal.culated as a result of the analysis. The new spray pH value of 9.2 is less than the~ minimum'value of 10.0 stated in'the.
FSAR. Since pH values within the range of 8.5 to 11.0 have equal iodine'.
removal effectiveness the 9.2 value is therefore acceptable.
The minimum pH for the Sump will now be 8.4, slightly lower than the FSAR minimum value of 8.5.- However, a pH of 7.5 will support.the elemental iodine decontamination factor of 100 which was used in the FSAR dose analysis. Thus the 8.4 value is acceptable.
The requirement of pH in the range of 7 to 9.5 (Branch.Technica1' Position MTEB 6-1) for protecting against. stress corrosion cracking is fulfilled.
Also hydrogen generation due to corrosion of aluminum and zine will be equal to or less than assumed in the FSAR. Therefore the changes are.
acceptoble as far as effects on pH of containment spray and recirculating core coolant solutions.
Based on our review of the above considerations we find the changes as proposed to be acceptable, subject to the licensee changing the hot leg switchover time from 22.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> for emergency procedures following LOCA, because they are based upon safety analyses of the ap.propriate events which have been performed using approved methods.
In a subsequent discussion with the licensee, a commitment'was made that these procedural changes would be-implemented when'the hardware modifications were made.to the plant. Therefore, we find the proposed changes and the corresponding modified Technical Specifications to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the 1
amendments involve no significant. increase in the amounts, and no j
significant change'in the types, of any effluents that may be released' I
offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or l
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no pubite comment.on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set.forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to i
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
_-_________m_..__.____.5___.__.-
.n m
'c...,
4-
4.0 CONCLUSION
.The Commission made a.' proposed determination that the amendments' involve, no significant hazards consideration which was published in the' Federal Register (52FR26596)onJuly 15, 1987 and consulted-with the State of New Jersey. No public comments were received:and the. State of New Jersey-did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerationsidiscussed above,.
l that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the: health.and safety nf
.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.the amendments'will not be--
inimical to.the common defense ~and security nor to'the health'and safety.
of the public.
1a Principal Contributor:
M. Chatterton Dated: october 16, 1987 1
l I
1 l
l L
l 1.L1
___n_________
__ _ _ _