ML20245L192

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 93 & 68 to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,respectively
ML20245L192
Person / Time
Site: Salem  
Issue date: 05/01/1989
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245L187 List:
References
GL-84-13, NUDOCS 8905050314
Download: ML20245L192 (4)
v • d • e


Text

. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

{, ' ', -

1

/

UNITED STATES o,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

~s...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 93 AND 68 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC A GAS. COMPANY PHILADELPHIAELECTRIC_COMPR DELMARVAPOWERANDL_IGHTCl}jjgY, ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPA_Q SALEM GENERATING STATION. UNI _T___NOS. 1 AND 2 f

DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated April 14, 1987 and supplemented by letter dated October 5, 1988 Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.

The proposed amendments would delete Tables 3.7.4a and 3.7.4b, Snubber Tables, from the Technical Sr.ecifications and other administrative changes.

2.0 EVALUATION The current technical specifications (TSs) have tables (3.7.4a and 3.7.4b) that list all safety related hydraulic and mechanical snubbers that are required to be operable. With the tables removed from the TSs, the licensees' department responsible for inservice inspections will maintain the list of snubbers. The initial list will be those currently in the TSs.

Any additions or deletions from the list will be reviewed and approved in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

In addition, any changes to the l

1 accessibility classifications will recuire the approval of the Station Operations Review Connittee (SORC). This is being added to the Bases, section 3/4.7.9.

~

Changes are also being made to the Limiting Condition for Operation, Surveillance Requirements Bases, and the Administrative controls section to eliminate reference to Tables 3.7.4a and 3.7.4b.

The changes conform to the recommendation of GL 84-13, Technical Specifications for Snubbers, and the staff finds these acceptable.

8905050314 890501 DR ADOCK 0500 2

l l

t,- y, hr.

5 2-The licensee has, in some cases, chosen to modify the model TSs in Gl.

84-13. These are evaluated below, a.

The opening statement of 3.7.9 of GL 84-13 requires all snubbers to be operable except those on nonsafety systems whose failure would have no adverse impact on any safety related systems.

The licensees' proposed opening statement of 3.7.9 requires all snubbers to be operable. The exclusion statement has been placed in the Bases. Section 3/4.7.9. This change brings all the snubbers in i

the plant under the Technical Specification program, notwithstanding the Bases statement. This change brings the Salem units into conformance with the Hope Creek unit, that shares the same site.

The staff finds this change to be acceptable.

b.

The licensee has added a definition of snubber " type" to Surveillance Requirement 4.7.9.a, Visual Inspection. Snubber " type" is defined as snubbers of the same design and manufacturer, irrespective of capacity.

For example, mechanical snubbers utilizing the same design features of the 2-kip, 10-kip, and 100-kip capacity manufactured by Company "A" are of the same type. The same design mechanical snubbers manufactured by Company "B" for the.-purposes of this Technica.1. Specification would be a different type, as would hydraulic snubbers from either manufacturer.

This change also clarifies the meaning of " type" used in defining the sample specified in Functional Test requirements (Surveillance Requirement 4.7.9.c).

The same definition of snubber " type" is also used in the Hope Creek technical Specifications. This change will bring the Salem units into conformance with the Hope Creek unit that shares the same site. The staff finds this change to be acceptable.

I c.

The statement of Surveillance Requirement 4.7.0c, Functional Tests that required snubbers that are difficult to remove or in high radiation zones during shutdown to be included in the sample has been removed. The second paragraph of 4.7.9.c states that "the i

representative sample selected for functional testing shall include the various configurations, operating environments and the range of size and capacities of snubbers." It is intended that this statement includes those snubbers that are difficult to remove or in a high radiation during shutdown. This change is consistent with the current wording of the Hope Creek technical specifications and the q

latest draft of the Westinghouse standard technical specifications.

l The staff finds this change to be acceptable.

I l

i l

..,,s.1

.r.

s.

. d.

The

Because this provides information concerning the process to be used in obtaining an exemption the staff finds this change to be acceptable, e.

For Salem Unit 1, the ** footnote of Surveillance Requirement 4.7.9.c has been deleted. This footnote required that functional

~

testing of snubbers rated at 50,000 lbs capacity or more shall commence with the 4th refueling outage. Salem Unit I has completed their 7th refueling outage. This footnote is no longer applicable.

The staff' finds this change to be acceptable.

In addition, a number of editorial changes were made (e.g., correct.

i typographical errors, page numbers, punctuation) to the revised i

technical specification pages. These changes are also noted by

-i vertical bars in the right margin.

In addition, changes were made to the technical specification pages submitted by the licensee to correct additional administrative errors.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

I 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 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no i

significant increase-in the amounts, and no significant change in the l

types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no i

significant increase in individual or 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 public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10.

CFR51.22(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 amendments.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the F.ederal Register (53FR9927)onMarch8,1989andconsultedwiththeStateof New Jersey. No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.

I

g..

,_sI-The staff 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 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.

Principal Contributor:

J. Stone Dated: May 1, 1989 i

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20245L192&oldid=3907654"