ML20247B011
| ML20247B011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A996 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909120306 | |
| Download: ML20247B011 (3) | |
Text
_
- pueruq
,g*
b fg UNITED STATES
,,.g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rf
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 101 AND 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY
_ PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 12, 1988 and supplemented by letters dated March 3, 1989 and June 8, 1989, 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 March 3, 1989 supplemental letter provided revised pages to correct administrative errors in the original submittal and the Index. The June 8, 1989 supplemental letter provided clarification of the action statements. The proposed amendments would incorporate Technical Specifications for reactor head vents into the Salem 1 and 2 Technical Specifications in accordance with the requirements of Generic Letter 83-37, NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications, dated November 1, 1983.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee-has proposed to add new Specification 3/4.4.12 and Bases 3/4.4.12 to the Salem 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs). These additions will incorporate the requirements for and bases of the reactor vessel head vent (RVHV) system. This amendment request includes only the RYHV system.
Ref. 1 included other high point vents within the Reactor Coolant System. The licensee chose to use the power operated relief valves (PORVs) and their associated block valves as another vent path.
This was approved by Ref. 2.
Requirements for the PORVs and block valves are already included in the Salem 1 and 2 TSs.
The specific plant design of the RVHV system was previously reviewed by the NRC as documented in Ref. 2.
That evaluation approved the current RVHV system design, except for removing power to the valves to prevent inadvertent operation. This practice would preclude indicatia of valve position in the control room. The licensee has modified the system to use a key lock system to prevent inadvertent operation while maintaining M
p ADOCK 05000272 PDC l
L___ __ _
d n:,
J c'
a
.f- {
i position indication in the control room. The system also contains a flow restricting orifice in the vent line that limits the flow from a pipe rupture or inadvertent op'ning to less than the capacity of the reactor coolant makeup system. Thcs, the RVHVS meets the guidance provided in Ref. 2.
The proposed changes add requirements to the Salem 1 and 2 TSs that at least ane reactor vessel head vent path shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4, with the valves closed. Also, the valves will be powered frcm vital sources.
The original proposal would have allowed all reactor vossel head vent paths to be inoperable for 30 days. By letter dated Jane 8, 1989, the licensee modified the proposed Action Statements to allow up to three reactor vessel head vent paths to be inoperable for up to 30 days.
If not restored to operable status within 30 days, place the plant in Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in Cold Shutduc within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. With four vent paths inoperable, at least one vent path must be restored within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or place the plant in Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in Cold Shutde,m within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
Surveillance requirements have been added to demonstrate the operability of the RVHV System every 18 months.
Included are valve position verifications, valve cycling and initiation of flow-through the system.
The above TS changes are in general agreement with the guidance provided in Ref. 1.
However, the case where both the RVHV system and the PORVs are inoperable has not been directly addre,ssed. The guidance in Ref. I provides a 72-hour time limit to restore both to operable before a shutdown is necessary. As currently written in the TSs, the PORVs could be inoperable for an indefinite period of time. As proposed, the RVHV system could be inoperable for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before a shutdown is necessary.
The staff has considered this deviation and finds it acceptable.
The proposed TS revision described herein are appropriate and generally follow the staff's position in regard to reactor vessel head ver.ts.
Therefore, based on the foregoing evaluations, the staff concludes that the requested additions are 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 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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
+
t L
l.
e.
,7' '
exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comer.t 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 Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 7645) on February 22, 1989 and (54 FR 31119) on' July 26, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public coments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
REFERENCES 1.
Generic Letter 83-37, NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications, dated November 1, 1983.
2.
Letter S. A. Varga, NRC, to R. A. Uderitz, PSE&G, dated September 27, 1983.
Principal Contributor:
J. Stone Dated:
August 28, 1989 i
l I
I I
3
_