ML112520047

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:27, 29 June 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

09/08/11 Summary of Meeting with PSEG Nuclear LLC to Discuss Proposed License Amendment Regarding Reactor Coolant System Activity for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (TAC Nos. ME6895 and ME6896)
ML112520047
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 09/19/2011
From:
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
Ennis R, NRR/DORL, 415-1420
Shared Package
ML112520029 List:
References
LAR S11-02, TAC ME6895, TAC ME6896
Download: ML112520047 (6)


Text

LAR S11-02, Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Technical SpecificationLAR S11-02, Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Technical SpecificationSalem Units 1 and 2 Pre-Application MeetingSalem Units 1 and 2 Pre-Application MeetingEnclosure 2September 8, 2011September 8, 2011 Overview of Proposed ChangeOverview of Proposed Change

  • Reactor Coolant System Specific ActivityReplace the current Tech Spec limits on -Average Disintegration Energy with limits on noble gas activity. The noble gas activity would be based on DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133 and would take into account the noble gas activity in the primary coolant. LiAdtRt(LAR)SbittlStt 2*Li cense A men d men t R eques t (LAR) S u b m itt a l St ra t e gy The technical basis for the proposed change will be plant specific and consistent with the approach provided in TSTF 490, Rev. 1However, PSEG does not plan to reference the TSTF in the LAR.The LAR will maintain consistency with industry precedent.

Current Licensing BasisCurrent Licensing Basis TS Definitions1.10 Dose Equivalent I-1311.11 -Average Disintegration EnergyReactor Coolant System Specific ActivityLCO 3.4.8 (S1) & LCO 3.4.9 (S2)

  • Defines limits for specific activity of primary coolant to be:

3- 1.0 Ci/gm DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131

>>Or less than the limit line as shown on Figure 3.4-1 for specific power levels

- 100 / Ci/gm*Applicable in Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5SR 4.4.8 (S1) & SR 4.4.9 (S2)

  • Provides Table 4.4-4 for sampling requirement frequencies to determine if the specific activity of the primary coolants is within allowable limits Proposed Licensing BasisProposed Licensing Basis
  • TS 1.10 (S1 & S2)Minor text changes to explicitly identify the source for the dose conversion factors (DCFs) to be used to calculate Dose Equivalent I-131
  • DCFs shall be the "Thyroid" Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE) inhalation dose conversion factors from Table 2.1 of Federal Guidance Report No. 11 (FGR-11), "Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion," 1988.
  • TS 1.11 (S1 & S2)Delete -Average Disintegration Energy definition and replace with definition for Dose Equivalent Xe-133*DCFs shall be the air submersion "Effective" dose conversion factors from Table III.1 of Federal Guidance Report No. 12, (FGR-12) "External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil," EPA, 1993.
  • TS Figure 3.4-1 (S1 & S2) 4Delete figure
  • LCO 3.4.8 (S1) & LCO 3.4.9 (S2)Revise text to remove reference to Figure 3.4-1, and to replace it with a DEI primary coolant specific activity level of 60 Ci/gmReplace 100/E Bar specific activity limit for primary coolant nuclides other than iodine with a dose equivalent Xe-133 specific activity limit of 601 Ci/gmChange applicability requirements to Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4
  • SR 4.4.8 (S1) & SR 4.4.9 (S2)Revised based on industry precedent Effect on SafetyEffect on Safety
  • Limits on specific activity of th e reactor coolant ensure that the offsite and control room doses are appropriately limited during analyzed transients and accidents.
  • This change will implement a LC O that is consistent with thewholebodyradiologicalconsequenceanalyseswhich 5 the whole body radiological consequence analyses which are sensitive to the noble g as activity in the primary coolant.

Conclusion Conclusion

  • No significant hazards considerationNo physical or plant operational changesProposed change ensures consistency with assumptions in the safety analysesProposed change will ensure the monitored values are bddbthiitiltiithftl 6 b oun d e d by th e i n iti a l assump ti ons i n th e sa f e ty ana ly ses