ML18094B257

Application for Amend to License DPR-70,adding Clarifying Statements to Channel Functional Test Requirements,Per Table 4.3-13 of Tech Spec 3.3.3.9

ML18094B257
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	01/22/1990
From:	Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML18094B258	List: ML18094B257 ML18094B259
References
LCR-89-14, NLR-N89215, NUDOCS 9001310527
Download: ML18094B257 (8)

Text

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President - Nuclear Operations January 22, 1990 NLR-N89215 LCR 89-14 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,,

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-272 In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment for Salem Generating station, Unit No. 1 to Facility Operating License DPR-70. Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey.

This amendment request adds clarifying statements to the CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST requirements specified in Table 4.3-13 of.

Technical Specification 3.3.3.9. The proposed changes are administrative in nature in that they correct an inadvertent deletion of clarifying statements and the omission of an additional clarifying statement for radiation monitors 1R16 and 1R12A respectively. Since this change is administrative, and is consistent with the changes approved in Amendment 64 to the Unit 1 license, PSE&G believes that the proposed change corresponds to a Category 2 change and should not require extensive special technical review.

Attachment 1, to this transmittal, contains a description, justification, and Signfficant Hazards Consideration Evaluation for this amendment. Attachment 2 provides the requested amendment pages revised with pen and ink changes.

( 9001310527 900122 PDR ADOCK 05000272 f/OOI

! P PDC I {I

Document Control Desk 2 1-22-90 NLR-N89215 PSE&G requests an expedited review of this License Change Request. At present, these channels cannot be used for monitoring their respective releas.e pathways without establishing special communications between the control room and the local instrument racks. Should there be any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, Enclosures C Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625

REF: NLR-N89215 LCR 89-14 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM

s. LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President - Nuclear Operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated January 22, 1990 , concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 1, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Subscribe~nd Sworn to before me this J; day of , 1990 lARAINE Y. BEARD Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires May 1, 199l My Commission expires on

ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 Description of Change This proposed amendment adds clarifying statements to the Surveillance Requirements specified in Table 4.3-13 of Technical Specification 3.3.3.9. Under NOTATION (1), No. 3, the statement "(Indication on instrument drawer in Control Equipment Room only for 1R12A)" would be added. Under NOTATION (2), No. 3, the statement "(Indication on instrument drawer in Control Equipment Room only for 1R16)"

would be added. Under NOTATION (2), No. 4, the statement

"(Applicable to 1R16 only)" would be added.

Justification for Change The clarifying statements, mentioned above, would change the CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST requirements associated with the 1R12A and 1R16 Radiation Monitors to match their actual design in the station. The clarifying statements proposed for NOTATION (2), Nos. 3 and 4, were previously reviewed and approved in Amendment 64 to the Unit 1 License in order to correct an error in Amendment 59 which did not account for the design differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Rad Monitoring Systems. The clarifying statements were inadvertently removed by Amendment 79, which did not to change the surveillance requirements associated with the 1R16 instrument channel.

Amendment 79, also approved the use of the 1R12A as an additional Noble Gas Activity Monitor under the CONTAINMENT PURGE AND PRESSURE - VACUUM RELIEF section of Tables 3.3-13 and 4.3-13.

Although the 1Rl2A already had Surveillance Requirements specified in Technical Specification 3.3.3.1, Table 4.3-3, it was added to the Surveillance Requirement Table 4.3-13 to insure that a channel check was performed prior to each release through its associated pathway; and to ensure that the alarm/trip setpoint of the 1R12A, when functioning as an effluent monitor, is established per Technical Specification 3.3.3.9 requirements.

As stated previously in LCR 85-02 (Approved as Amendment 64) the changes clarify and correct NOTATION Nos. (1) and (2) regarding automatic isolation and control room alarm annunciation for listed conditions for Salem 1. The clarifying statements for the 1R16 will change the Technical Specifications to correct the inadvertent deletion of these statements. The clarifying statements for the

1Rl2A will allow the 1Rl2A functional test requirements to match the design of the 1R12A instrument channel. This statement will provide the same clarification as the 1R16 statement since this function is the same for both radiation monitors. The radiation monitors will still be functionally tested to assure that they are OPERABLE per their design.

Significant Hazards Evaluation These changes are administrative, in that, they restore clarifying statements to the Technical Specifications that were inadvertently removed in Amendment 79, and that they correct an oversight associated with the CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST of 1R12A. These corrections are consistent with the administrative corrections made in Amendment 64; in which the NRC Staff verified that "the new wording did not remove or relax any existing requirement needed to provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public would not be endangered by the plants' operation".

The proposed changes to Technical Specification 3.3.3.9, Table 4.3-13, do not involve a significant hazards consideration in that these administrative changes would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The changes are administrative in that they correct the Technical Specifications so that the surveillance requirement for the 1R16 and 1Rl2A match the actual design of the Radiation Monitors. The monitors will still be proven capable of meeting the required functions and therefore be maintained OPERABLE in accordance with the Limiting Condition of Operations (LCO) requirements.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

The changes are only administrative and do not change the requirements to maintain the Radiation Monitors OPERABLE in accordance with the LCO requirements. Therefore, the change cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The 1Rl6 and 1R12A Radiation Monitors will continue to be proven OPERABLE in accordance with the Technical Specification specified surveillance intervals. The changes to specification only clarify the method of verifying the performance of the CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST and do not effect the capability of the instrumentation to isolate the release path on the appropriate high radiation signals. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Conclusion Based on the above considerations, PSE&G has concluded that the proposed changes satisfy the criteria for no significant hazards consideration.

-- . - . ...

..

ATTACHMENT 2