ML20248C093
| ML20248C093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248C069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910030368 | |
| Download: ML20248C093 (3) | |
Text
_ - _-- - - _
l +gm49'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
o WASHINGTON, D C.20666 I
$.....l i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGU'LATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 103 AND 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING l-LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC 8 GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND-LIGHT COMPANY
' ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. I AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 23, 1988 and supplemented on January 26, 1989 and May 22,1989,- 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 proposed amendments would delete the requirement to verify shutdown rod positions (Surveillance -
Requirement 4.1.3.4)andcontrolbankpositions(Surveillance requirement 4.1.3.5) within one hour after rod motion. The May 22, 1989 letter added a footnote to Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 to-allow a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> thermal soak for power levels below 50% before making the comparison between the group demand counters and the analog rod position indicators. Also, the applicability of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4.a would be clarified by adding a footnote stating that it is applicable prior to withdrawing control banks, in preparation for Startup (Mode 2) while in Hot Standby (Mode 3).
2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specification Surveillance 4.1.3.4 is intended to provide a means of performing the surveillance on the shutdown rods within 15 minutes prior to withdrawal of any rods in the control bank and at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> thereafter.
Technical Specification Surveillance 4.1.3.5 is intended to provide a means of performing the surveillance on the control rods to be within the insertion limits at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> or at least once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> if the Rod Insertion Limit Monitor is inoperable.
8910030368g{f,h72 FDR ADOw ppc P
t l
,4 L i The original request was submitted to alleviate difficulties encountered in calibration of the Analog Rod Position Indication (ARPI)' system. This change shifted rod position determination from the ARPI to the group demand counters with subsequent verification by the ARPIS. Comparison of group demand counters to the ARPIS (allowing one hour for thermal soak after rod motion) was sufficient verification of the rod position. The requirements of Technical Specification 3.1.3.2.1 that the capability exists to determine rod position "within one hour of rod motion (allowance for thermal soak)" was apparently transposed to require verification of rod position within one hour of rod motion in other specifications.
As now worded _in the surveillance specification, compliance with the requirement to veMfy control bank positions within one hour of rod motion precludes Automatic Rod Control since the operator would have to account for every rod motion. This is not practical nor necessary since the operator uses the appropriate indication during rod manipulations.
There is no basis to support the requirement to document a verification of shutdown or control rod position after each movement of rods. The bases section of both the Salem and Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications state that: " Rod position and OPERABILITY of the rod position indicators are required to be verified on a nominal basis of once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> with more frequent verifications required if an automatic monitoring channel is inoperable. These verification frequencies are adequate for assuring that the applicable LCO's are satisfied."
Further indication that the wording in Section 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 is in error is found in Sections 4.1.3.1.1 and 4.1.3.2.1.1 which both state that comparison of the group demand position indicators and the ARPI should be performed once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (allowing one hour for thermal soak after rod motion). Additionally, the licensee has reviewed the Technical Specifications from 25 Westinghouse plants and found that the requirement to verify rod position within one hour of rod motion is unique to the Salem Technical Specifications.
The allowance for a one hour thermal soak following rod motion at power levels below 50% is acceptable and desirable. Above 50% power, rod motions are expected to be small and are not expected to induce significant thermal transients in the analog rod position channels. By letter dated May 22, 1989 the licensee proposed adding a footnote to sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 to allow the one hour thermal soak time.
A footnote was added and other changes were made to clarify that Specification 4.1.3.4.a is applicable only when withdrawing control banks in preparation for Mode 2.
Mode 2 is defined as Keff greater than or equal to 0.99.
Control banks can be pulled prior to Keff reaching 0.99.
Therefore, as currently written, Specification 4.1.3.4.a does not correspond with the applicability stateme.1t.
p 9 The licensee's original request proposed replacing Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4.a "within 15 minutes prior to withdrawal of any rods in control banks A, 8, C or D during an approach of reactor critically
'(sic)" with "within 15 minutes prior to withdrawal of any control bank during an approach to critically (sic)." The licensee's January 26, 1989 supplement withdrew this portion of the original request. The January 26,
-1989 supplement also corrected the spelling of the word " criticality" in the Technical Specifications.
The staff finds the proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.1.3.4, 4.1.3.4.a and 4.1.3.5 to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENT.L 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 cunulative 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 CFR 51.22(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 Federal Rerister (54 FR 1024) on January 11, 1989 and (54 FR 3511) on August 23, 19E9 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public comments were l
received and the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.
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: Jim Stone Dated:
September 25, 1989 t
- - _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - _ _ -