ML20246L382
| ML20246L382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180306 | |
| Download: ML20246L382 (3) | |
Text
[
gaucq UNITED STATES
[ g,,,fj y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
. p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[
v.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 73T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DRP-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC. COMPANY i
DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 21, 1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.
The proposed amendment would revise the Unit 2 Technical Specification, Table 4.3-1 Functional Unit 20 to agree with the Unit 1 Technical Specifications and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications. This change is being submitted on an emergency basis because a discrepancy was found to exist i
between the distribution copy of the Salem, Unit 2, Technical Specifications and the NRC record copy of the Salem, Unit 2, Technical Specifications.
If the requirements of the NRC record copy are applied, a required surveillance would not have been performed in the required time. This would make the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Breaker Position Trip units inoperable. With all 4 RCP breaker position units inoperable, the plant is in a one hour shutdown action statsrent. The required surveillance requirements cannot be performed with tne plant at power. On April 24, 1989, PSE&G submitted the affidavit along with a copy of the April 21, 1989 submittal. No technical changes were made in this resu]mittal.
2.0 EVALUATION In its April 21, 1989 letter, Public Service Electric and Gas Company submitted a proposed changed to the Technical Specifications for the Reactor Coolant Pump Breaker Position Trip (Position Trip) for the Salem Generating Station, Unit 2.
The proposed change would reduce the surveillance tests of the Reactor Coolant Pump Breaker Position Trip from once per startup to once per refueling outage. This would make the Unit 2 Technical Specification 4.3-1, Reactor Coolant Pump Breaker Position Trip consistent with the Unit 1 Technical Specification and be consistent with accepted industry practices for surveillance of this trip. The change I
8905180306 890509 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
+
from once per startup to once per refueling outage reduces the number of unnecessary equipment challenges and therefore, increases the probability that the equipment will function as intended. The reactor trip associated with the Reactor Coulant Pump Breaker Position Trip is not taken credit for the Salem accident analysis and does not reduce the margin of safety.
We have reviewed the licensee's evaluation and justification and find it acceptable. As such, we find that the proposed Technical Specification change is acceptable. This position is consistent with the related surveillance test interval specified in other PWR technical specifications.
3.0 EMERGENCY BASIS In its April 21, 1989 letter, the licensee has shown tr.at Unit 2 is currently operating at 100% power and would be required to enter a one hour shutdown action statement if the requirements of the NRC record copy of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications were applied. The distribution copies of the Salem, Unit 2, Technical Specifications do not contain this action statement, hence, the shutdown would not be required.
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
DETERMINATION TheCommissionhasprovidedstandardsfordeterminingw(c) thera he significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.9?
).
A proposed amen.dment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the' facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the following basis and conclusions provided by the licensee in its April 21, 1989 submittal.
I.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change is consistent with accepted industry practices for surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Pump Breaker position Trip equipment. The change from once per startup to once per refueling reduces the number of unnecessary equipment challenges and, therefore, increases the probability that the equipment will function as intended. The reactor trip associated with the reactor coolant pump breaker position is not taken credit for in the Salem accident analysis.
'~.O>
o r
t 1 II.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
]
Since the proposed change does not change any plant hardware nor the manner in which the equipment functions, a new or different kind of accident is not created.
III. The proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety.
l l
Because the proposed change makes Salem, Unit 2 consistent with accepted industry practice and since the reactor trip associated with the reactor coolant pump breaker position is not taken credit for in the Salem accident analysis, the margin of safety is not reduced.
5.0 STATE CONSIDERATION The State of New Jersey was contacted on May 1, 1989 and they had no comments.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves 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 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 made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to this amendment. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria forcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(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 this amendment.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) the amendment does not (a) significantly increase the robability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, p(b) increase the possibility (of a new or different kind of a any previously evaluated or c) significantly reduce a safety margin and, therefore, the amendment does not involve significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (3) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
B. Marcus and D. Fischer Dated:
May 9, 1989 l