ML20248K831
| ML20248K831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248K827 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100295 | |
| Download: ML20248K831 (2) | |
Text
.
pm%
UNITED STATES
,p g,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. enmaa anny o
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REl.ATED TO AMENDMENT NO.211TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENR5 NO. DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO, 50-272 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 26, igg 8, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested change would revise TS 3.1.3.3, " Rod Drop Time," to l
change the applicability from Mode 3 (hot shutdown) to Modes 1 and 2 (startup and power operation).
i 2.0 EVALUATION The control rod drive mechanism is an electromagneticJacking devise that accomplishes holding and motion for a control rod and rod cluster control assembly (RCCA). Control rod movement takes place by sequentially energizing an arrangement of electromagnets (coils) that operate the stationary and moveable grippers and latches and the lifting armature. The control rod is held stationary by applying electrical power to the stationary gripper coil. When electrical power is removed from the stationary gripper coil either by manual initiation, or by the reactor protection system, the control rod is released and allowed to fall by gravity into the reactor core.
To ensure that the control rods with attached RCCAs will insert within the time assumed in the appilcable accident analyses, a surveillance test is periodically performed before the reactor is brought critical (Mode 2). This surveillance TS 4.1.3.3, requires that rod drop time of full-length rods be demonstrated through measuremerit prior to criticality. The Rod Drop Time Umiting Condition for Operation (LCO) in TS 3.1.3.3 states that individual full-length (shutdown and control) rod drop time from 228 steps withdrawn shall be s 2.7 seconds as measured from the L beginning of stationary gripper coil voltage decay to dashpot entry. To ensure that the as-tested rod drop times are consistent with the assumption in the analyses and are representative of insertion times experienced during a reactor 1:1p at operating conditions, TS 4.1.3.3 requires the
- test to be done when average reactor coolant system temperature (T.) > 541 *F. and all reactor coolant pumps are in operation. Thus, the test must be conducted when the plant is in Mode 3 (hot shutdown).'
9806100295 980604
[
PDR-ADOCK 05000272 P
l PDR.
I
a 3.. TS Bases 3/4.0, " APPLICABILITY" states that TS 3.0.1 establishes the Applicability statement within each individual specification as the requirement for when (i.e., in which OPERATIONAL MODES or other specified conditions) conformance to the LCO is required for safe operation of the facility. The current Applicability statement in TS 3.1.3.3 states the requirement is applicable
- only in Mode 3. Although the rod drop time verification for TS 3.1.3.3 is performed in Mode 3, the conformance to this LCO ensures safe operation when the reactor is in startup or power operation (Modes 1 and 2). Therefore, TS 3.1.3.3 Applicability should be Modes 1 and 2.
Furthermore, the licenses stated in its March 26,1998, letter that it had committed to submitting this change request as a corrective action in Licensee Event Report No. 272/96-005-10. The proposed change will also make this Salem Unit 1 Applicability statement consistent with the sarne statement in the Salem Unit 2 TSs.
On the basis of the above, the NRC staff finds that the proposed change to the TS 3.1.3.3 Applicability statement is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the pioposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC 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 previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 19978). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the
' Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: P. Milano Date: June 4,1998
[
'