ML20247Q529
| ML20247Q529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247Q527 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, GL-85-09, GL-85-9, NUDOCS 8906060453 | |
| Download: ML20247Q529 (3) | |
Text
.
9-
^
r nae J
' UNITED STATES
'l
[4 l
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r-J wassimaTow, p. c.2oses
\\f
...+
SAFETY EVALUATION'BY THE 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 97 AND 74 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 N05. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
a'd supplemented December 18, 1986, By letter dated October 17, 1985 n
Public-Service Electric & Gas Company submitted proposed changes to the Salem Technical Specifications pertaining to the reactor trip system instrumentation limiting conditions for operation,. Table 3.3-1 and surveillance requirements, Table 4.3-1 that were responsive to Item 4.3 of Generic Letter 83-28. Guidance for these changes was provided by-Generic Letter 85-09 (MPA B-90). Generic Letter 85-09 concluded that Technical Specification changes.should be proposed by licensees to explicitly ' require independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments of the reactor trip breakers during power operation, testing of bypass breakers prior to use, and independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts and wiring during each refueling (outage.
Operability requirements for the diverse trip features undervoltage and shunt trip attachments) were also included.
2.0 EVALUATION The-licensee's proposed Technical Specification changes submitted by letter dated October 17, 1985 were evaluated in our Safety Evaluation Report dated June 6, 1986. The proposed changes were found to be consistent with Generic Letter 85-09 and acceptable except as indicated below:
No changes were proposed by the licensee for Reactor Trip Breakers (Functional Unit 21) or Automatic Trip Logic (Function Unit 22) of
' Table 3.3-1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, that defines the 8906060453 890531 ADOCK 05000272 )S[
J PDR P
PNV a
- Limiting Conditions for Operation of the Reactor Trip System.
However, Generic Letter 85-09, for each of these functional units, requires the ACTION for M0 ACTIONforMODES1and2.g53*,4*and5*tobeseparatedfromthe For MODES 3*, 4* and 5* the ACTION required should be similar to Action 13 of Generic Letter 85-09 (i.e. with one less than the minimum number of required channels operable, restore the inoperable channel to operate within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or open the reactor trip breakers within one hour).
For MODES I and 2 the ACTION required is to be in hot standby (MODE 3) within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
In addition to the indicated ACTION 1 for the Reactor Trip Breakers, an action similar to Action 14 of Generic Letter 85-09 (i.e. action to be taken if the undervoltage or shunt trip is inoperable) should be added, for MODES 1 and 2.
The staff believes the above changes for both Reactor Trip Breakers and Automatic Trip Logic for MODES 3*, 4* and 5* are a ACTION 1 requires a change to Hot Standby (Mode 3)ppropriate because within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> if the number of OPERABLE channels is one less than the minimum required. A change to Hot Standby is not appropriate when in Modes 3*, 4* and 5*-
because Hot Standby is Mode 3 and would require going to a higher operating mode if in Mode 4* or 5* (Mode 1 is Power Operation and Mo'de 5 is Cold Shutdown).
The addition of ACTION 14 to Reactor Trip Breakers in Modes 1 and 2 is necessary to define the Action to be taken when one of the diverse trip features (undervoltage trip or shunt trip) of the reactor trip breakers is inoperable. The ACTION to be taken is to restore to OPERABLE within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or declare the breaker INOPERABLE and be in Hot Shutdown within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
The licensee's December 18, 1986 submittal corrected the deficiencies as discussed above and therefore brcught the request into compliance with Generic Letter 85-09. For Table 4.3-1, Reactor Trip System Surveillance Requirements, we find the licensee's proposed changes consistent with, and more exact than, those of Generic Letter 85-09. These proposed changes are therefore acceptable.
We find the Technical Specification changes proposed by Public Service Electric and Gas Company in their letters dated October 17, 1985 and December 18, 1986 for the Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, to be consistent with Generic Letter 85-09 and therefore 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 M
The
- means that the action applies when the reactor trip breakers are in the closed position and the control rod drive system is capable of rod withdrawal.
)
,a d
l 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 j
types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there j
has been no public coment 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 j-the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
1 The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 5277) on February 12, 1986 and (54 FR 28183) on April 27, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public comments 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 inhnical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
A. Toalston and J. Stone Dated:
May 31, 1989
-