ML062690480

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 & 2, License Amendment, Issuance of Amendments Refueling Operations and Special Test Exceptions (TAC Nos. MC9337 & MC9338)

ML062690480
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	10/13/2006
From:	Bailey S N NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-2
To:	Levis W Public Service Electric & Gas Co
Bailey S N,NRR/DLPM,415-1321
Shared Package
ML062690463	List: ML062690480 ML062900271
References
TAC MC9337, TAC MC9338
Download: ML062690480 (14)

Text

October 13, 2006Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCEOF AMENDMENTS RE: REFUELING OPERATIONS AND SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS (TAC NOS. MC9337 AND MC9338)

Dear Mr. Levis:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 275 and 257 to Facility OperatingLicense Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications in response to the PSEG Nuclear LLC application dated December 7, 2005, as supplemented byletters dated July 20 and September 5, 2006. The amendments delete the surveillancerequirements to perform a channel functional test of the source range neuron flux monitor within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to the initial start of core alterations. These amendments also eliminate the "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction for performing channel functional tests on the power range and intermediate range nuclear monitors prior to initiating physics tests or low flow tests.A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in theCommission's biweekly Federal Register notice. Sincerely,/RA/Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 275 to License No. DPR-70

2. Amendment No. 257 to License No. DPR-75

3. Safety Evaluationcc w/encls: See next page October 13, 2006Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCEOF AMENDMENTS RE: REFUELING OPERATIONS AND SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS (TAC NOS. MC9337 AND MC9338)

Dear Mr. Levis:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 275 and 257 to Facility OperatingLicense Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications in response to the PSEG Nuclear LLC application dated December 7, 2005, as supplemented byletters dated July 20 and September 5, 2006. The amendments delete the surveillancerequirements to perform a channel functional test of the source range neuron flux monitor within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to the initial start of core alterations. These amendments also eliminate the "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction for performing channel functional tests on the power range and intermediate range nuclear monitors prior to initiating physics tests or low flow tests.A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in theCommission's biweekly Federal Register notice. Sincerely,/RA/Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 275 to License No. DPR-70

2. Amendment No. 257 to License No. DPR-75

3. Safety Evaluationcc w/encls: See next pagePUBLICLPL1-2 R/FRidsNrrPMSBaileyRidsNrrLACRaynor RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2RidsOgcRpRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDorlGHill (2)RidsNrrDirsItsbPackage Accession Number: ML062690463Amendment Accession Number: ML062690480TS(s) Accession Number: ML062900271 OFFICELPL1-2/PMLPL1-2/LAITSB/BCOGCLPL1-2/BCNAMESBailey:OSRCRaynorTKobetzJMartinHChernoffDATE 10/13/069/29/0610/4/0610/13/0610/13/06Official Record Copy Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. Dennis WinchesterVice President - Nuclear Assessment PSEG Nuclear

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. Thomas P. JoyceSite Vice President - Salem PSEG Nuclear

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. George H. GellrichPlant Support Manager PSEG Nuclear

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. Carl J. FrickerPlant Manager - Salem PSEG Nuclear - N21

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. Darin BenyakDirector - Regulatory Assurance PSEG Nuclear - N21

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. James MallonManager - Licensing 200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Steven MannonManager - Regulatory Assurance

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Jeffrie J. Keenan, EsquirePSEG Nuclear - N21

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Township ClerkLower Alloways Creek Township Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038Mr. Paul Bauldauf, P.E., Asst. DirectorRadiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415Mr. Brian BeamBoard of Public Utilities 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102Regional Administrator, Region IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406Senior Resident InspectorSalem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLCEXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLCDOCKET NO.50-272SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSEAmendment No. 275 License No. DPR-701.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:A.The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf ofitself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees), dated December 7, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated July 20 and September 5, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Chapter I;B.The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of theAct, and the rules and regulations of the Commission;C.There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by thisamendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with theCommission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;D.The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense andsecurity or to the health and safety of the public; andE.The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of theCommission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. 2.Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications asindicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of FacilityOperating License No. DPR-70 is hereby amended to read as follows: (2)Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection PlanThe Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revisedthrough Amendment No. 275, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the TechnicalSpecifications. 3.This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implementedwithin 60 days.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/RA/Harold K. Chernoff, ChiefPlant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 and Technical SpecificationsDate of Issuance: October 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 275 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70DOCKET NO. 50-272Replace the following page of Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 with the attached revisedpage as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.Remove PageInsert Page 4 4Replace the following pages of Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revisedpages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change. Remove PageInsert Page3/4 9-23/4 9-23/4 10-33/4 10-3 3/4 10-43/4 10-4 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLCEXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLCDOCKET NO.50-311SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSEAmendment No. 257License No. DPR-751.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:A.The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf ofitself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees), dated December 7, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated July 20 and September 5, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Chapter I;B.The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of theAct, and the rules and regulations of the Commission;C.There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by thisamendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with theCommission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;D.The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense andsecurity or to the health and safety of the public; andE.The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of theCommission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. 2.Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications asindicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of FacilityOperating License No. DPR-75 is hereby amended to read as follows: (2)Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection PlanThe Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revisedthrough Amendment No. 257, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the TechnicalSpecifications. 3.This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implementedwithin 60 days.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/RA/Harold K. Chernoff, ChiefPlant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 and Technical SpecificationsDate of Issuance: October 13, 2006 ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 257 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75DOCKET NO. 50-311Replace the following page of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 with the attached revisedpage as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.Remove PageInsert Page 4 4Replace the following pages of Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revisedpages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change. Remove PageInsert Page3/4 9-23/4 9-23/4 10-43/4 10-4 3/4 10-53/4 10-5 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONRELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 275 AND 257 TO FACILITY OPERATINGLICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PSEG NUCLEAR LLCEXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLCSALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-31

11.0INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 7, 2005, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG, the licensee) requested alicense amendment for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Theamendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) as follows: (1) delete TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.9.2.b, which requires a channel functional test (CFT) of the source range neutron flux monitor within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to initiating core alterations; (2) eliminate the " within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction from SR 4.10.3.2 for performing a CFT on the intermediate andpower range neutron monitors prior to initiating physics tests; and (3) eliminate the " within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction from SR 4.10.4.2 for performing a CFT on the intermediate range monitors, power range monitors, and P-7 interlock prior to initiating startup or physics tests (no flow tests). These changes were based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-108, "Eliminate the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> Channel Operational Test (COT) on Power Range and Intermediate Range Channels for Physics Test Exceptions," and NUREG-1431, "StandardTechnical Specifications, Westinghouse Plant."By letter dated July 20, 2006, PSEG supplemented its application to request additional changesto make the SRs for the nuclear instrumentation better aligned with NUREG-1431, Revision 3. However, after further discussion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or theCommission) staff, the licensee withdrew the additional changes by letter dated September 5, 2006. The scope of the change is within the scope of the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43819).

2.0REGULATORY EVALUATION

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix A, "General DesignCriteria for Nuclear Power Plants," Criterion 13, "Instrumentation and control," states "Instrumentation shall be provided to monitor variables and systems over their anticipatedranges for normal operation, for anticipated operational occurrences, and for accident conditions as appropriate to assure adequate safety..."

Section 50.36(c)(3) of 10 CFR states, "Surveillance requirements are requirements relating totest, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and componentsis maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditionsfor operation will be met." The licensee is proposing to reduce the number of SRs performed on the nuclearinstrumentation by eliminating the redundant testing of the source range, intermediate range,and P-7 interlocks required by the TSs for fuel movement and/or special test exceptions. TheNRC staff's evaluation of the proposed TS changes was based on continued compliance withGeneral Design Criterion 13, and 10 CFR 50.36.

3.0TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The purpose of the nuclear instrumentation system (NIS) is to monitor the power level of thereactor. The power range, intermediate range, and source range neutron flux monitors are part of the NIS excore neutron detectors. The source range monitors are used primarily when the reactor is subcritical and during special subcritical modes of operation. The intermediate range detectors measure neutron flux between the source range and the power range extremes. The power range detectors can detect overpower excursions up to 200 percent of rated thermal power. Each range of instrumentation (source, intermediate, and power) provides the necessary overpower reactor trip function required during operation in its respective power range. The overlap of instrument ranges provides continuous protection at all licensed power levels.The SRs for the source range, intermediate range, and power range channels are addressed,in part, in TS 3/4.3.1, "Reactor Trip System [RTS] Instrumentation," which includes the following:*For the source range monitors, SR 4.3.1.1.1 requires a CFT every 92 days and prior toeach reactor startup, if not performed in the previous 31 days, while the unit is in Modes 2, 3, 4, or 5, or with the RTS breakers closed and the control rod drive system(CRDS) capable of rod withdrawal. *For the intermediate range monitors, SR 4.3.1.1.1 requires a CFT prior to each reactorstartup, if not performed in the previous 31 days, while the unit is in Modes 1 or 2 or with the RTS breakers closed and the CRDS capable of rod withdrawal.*For the power range monitors, SR 4.3.1.1.1 requires a CFT every 92 days while the unitis in Modes 1, 2, or 3, or with the RTS breakers closed and the CRDS capable of rodwithdrawal.*For the P-7 interlock, SR 4.3.1.1.2 requires the logic to be demonstrated Operable(which encompasses a CFT) prior to each reactor startup, if not performed during the previous 92 days. Also, SR 4.9.2.a requires a CFT on the source range monitors every 7 days while the unit is inMode 6.

In addition to the above SRs, the Salem TSs contain SRs that must be performed within acertain time period before specific plant evolutions. The licensee has proposed to delete these evolution-based SRs, or to eliminate the time limits, arguing that the SRs described above are sufficient to demonstrate the operability of the NIS. The licensee has proposed three changesas follows:1.TS 3/4.9.2, "Refueling Operations, Instrumentation," includes SR 4.9.2.b, which requiresa CFT of the source range channels within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to initial start of core alterations in Mode 6. The licensee has proposed to delete this SR on the basis that, since SR 4.9.2.a requires a CFT of the source range channels every 7 days while in Mode 6, a CFT will have been performed on the source range monitors within the previous 7 daysprior to the start of core alterations. The licensee stated that the initiation of core alterations does not impact the ability of the source range monitors to perform theirrequired function, does not affect the trip setpoint or RTS capability, and does notinvalidate the previous SRs on the source range monitors. Also, since the monitors provide audible indication in the control room, the operators would know if the monitor became inoperable. Therefore, the licensee concludes that the additional SR to perform a CFT 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to core alterations is unnecessary. 2.TS 3/4.10.3, "Special Test Exceptions, Physics Tests," includes SR 4.10.3.2, whichrequires a CFT on each intermediate range and power range channel within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> prior to initiating physics tests in Mode 2. The licensee has proposed to delete the restriction of "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />." The revised wording will require the CFTs to beperformed if they are not current (e.g., have not already been performed in accordance with SR 4.3.1.1.1 on the required frequencies). This means that a CFT on the powerrange monitors will have been performed within the previous 92 days and a CFT on theintermediate range monitors will have been performed within the previous 31 days ofinitiating physics tests in Mode 2. The licensee stated that the initiation of physics tests does not impact the ability of the monitors to perform their required function, does notaffect the trip setpoints or RTS trip capability, and does not invalidate the previous SRs. Therefore, the licensee concludes that the "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction, which canrequire additional CFTs, is unnecessary.3.TS 3/4.10.4, "Special Test Exceptions, Low Flow Tests," includes SR 4.10.4.2, whichrequires a CFT on each intermediate and power range monitor, and on the P-7 interlocks, within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> prior to initiating startup or physics tests during operationbelow the P-7 interlock setpoint. The licensee has proposed to delete the restriction of "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />." The revised wording will require the CFTs to be performed if they arenot current (e.g., have not already been performed in accordance with SRs 4.3.1.1.1and 4.3.1.1.2 on the required frequencies). This means that a CFT on the power rangemonitors will have been performed within the previous 92 days, a CFT on theintermediate range monitors will have been performed within the previous 31 days, anda CFT (or a surveillance that encompasses a CFT) on the P-7 interlock will have beenperformed within the last 92 days of initiating startup or physics tests during operation below the P-7 interlock. The licensee stated that the initiation of startup does not impactthe ability of the monitors to perform their required function, does not affect the tripsetpoints or RTS trip capability, and does not invalidate previous SRs. Therefore, thelicensee concludes that the "within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" restriction, which can require additional CFTs, is unnecessary.

The licensee stated that the elimination of the redundant SRs will not diminish the required levelof testing for the NIS monitors and interlock. The monitors and interlock will conti nue to betested at appropriate frequencies, within the intervals that have been accepted for Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. On May 2, 1997, the NRC approved TSTF-108, Revision 1, to allow the deletion of the "within12 hours" prior to the initiation of physics tests for the CFTs required by Standard Technical Specification SR 3.1.10.1 and SR 3.4.19.2. The industry initiated TSTF-108 due to thescheduling difficulties created by the time limit. The NRC staff approved TSTF-108 because,with the proposed TS wording, the SRs would still be required to be performed (e.g., to becurrent) prior to initiation of physics tests, and the initiation of physics tests does not impact the ability of the monitors to perform their required function, does not affect the trip setpoints orRTS trip capability, and does not invalidate previous SRs. The NRC staff has reviewed PSEG'sproposed changes and determined that they meet the intent of TSTF-108, Revision 1.In summary, the NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request and determined that the TSSRs are sufficient to demonstrate that the NIS channels will perform their intended functions. The proposed TSs provide an approach that is similar to TSTF-108 and NUREG-1431 in thatthe SRs will have been performed within the interval that has been accepted for Salem, UnitNos. 1 and 2, prior to the plant evolutions addressed by the above TSs. The proposed change has no impact on the assumptions of any transient or accident analysis in the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the proposed changes areacceptable.

4.0STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified ofthe proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

5.0ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facilitycomponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff hasdetermined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and nosignificant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there isno significant increase in individual or cumulative 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 (71 FR 43819). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categoricalexclusion 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.

6.0CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) thereis reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered byoperation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to thecommon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Principal Contributors: F. Saba S. BaileyDate: October 13, 2006