ML18078B010
| ML18078B010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1979 |
| From: | Carbon M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078B009 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903140502 | |
| Download: ML18078B010 (4) | |
Text
,*- '
'-~*
'1 UNITED STATES
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
_ February 15,. 1979
Subject:
REPORT ON. SALEM. NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT* 2
Dear Dr. Hendrie:
During 'its 226th meeting1 February 8-10, 1979, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the application of the Pub-lic Service Electric and Gas Company, et al for authorization to operate the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2. 'Ibis project was initially considered in connection with the review of Salem Unit 1 and at a Sub-committee meeting in Washington, D. c. on January 24, 1979. A tour of the facility was made by Committee members on January 25,; 1979.
During its review the Committee had. the benefit of discussions with represen-
. tati ves and consul tan ts of the Ptiblic Service Electric and Gas Company,*
the Westinghou5e Electric Corporation, and the* Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) Staff, as well as comments from members of the public. 'Ihe Com-mittee also had the benefit of the documents listed.-
The Committee reported on the application for a construction permit for
- the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in its letter of June 21, 1968. 'ihe Committee reported on the application for an operating li-cense for Unit 1 in its letter of February 14, 1975, at which time it de-ferred its operating license review of Unit 2 untii q time somewhat closer to the expected start.of operations.
In January 1978, the NRC Staff began a re-review of Salem Unit 2 to con-sider changes in NRC regulations or requirements, changes in the design of the plant, and operating experience with Salem Unit 1. One phase of this re-review has included current generic matters such as fire protection, in-dustrial security, emergency planning, and A'IWS.
For these matters, the NRC Staff *is reviewing both Uni ts 1 and 2, and it is expected that the resolu-.
- tion will be substantially the same for both units.
The other phase of the re-review has addressed the degree to which Salem.
Unit 2 conforms to the provisions' of Regulatory Guides* and Branch Techni-cal.Positions that have been adopted since the operating license review was made for Salem Unit 1. 'Ihese.items include those classified_ by the
Honorable Joseph M *. Hendrie 2 -
February 15, 1979 Regulatory Requirements Review Committee as category.2 (backfit on a case-by-Case basis) and as Category 3 (backfit on all plants). A comparable review of Salem Unit 1 (which initially was identical to Unit 2) is being carried*out by the Division of Operating Reactors on a different time scale. 'lhe NRC Staff has stated that the reviews *for Units 1 and 2 are, or will be, coordinated to provide consistency between the two units.
'lhe NRC Staff's re-review of Salem Unit 2 is essentially complete and will be completed before an operating license is issued. '!here are four out-standing issues still under review or for which complete documentation has not* yet been received. '!here are also six items for which the NRC Staff requires only confirmatory documentation regardirig their resolution. '!he Committee believes that all of these outstanding issues and confirmatory items can and should be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff.
In its review of Salem Unit 1 and of the Hope Creek units at. the same site, the Committee expressed its concern about the' possibilities of accidents involving waterborne traffic on the Delaware River that might
. be of such a nature as to affect the safety of the plants. 'Ibis ques-tion has been addressed by the NRC Staff and the Applicant on*a probabil-
. istic basis in connection with the reviews*of both the Salem and Hope Creek plants. '!he Committee believes that the results of these studies provide a reasonable basis for assuming that the probabilities, and thus the risks, of such accidents are sufficiently low as not to provide an undue risk to the health and safety of the public. 'lhe Comlnitt~e, how-
- ever, continues to be concerned about accidents of this nature and be-lieves that the potential hazards should continue tO be reviewed from.time to tiine as the local conditions may change and as the extent and reliabil-ity of the data base may be increased.
'!he Committee~ recommends.that the NRC Staff establish criteria for the imple-mentation of RegulatoryGuide 1.97, "Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Conditions During *and Following an Accident," as soon as practicable. '!he Committee believes that Position C.3 of this Guide should be implemented on Salem Unit 2 to the extent prac-ticable.
With r!3(Jard to the generic items cited in the Committee's report, "Status of Generic Items Relating to Light-Water Reactors:
Report No~ 6," dated_
November 15, 1977, those. items considered relevant to Salem Unit 2 are:
II-2, 3, SB, 6, 7, 9, 10; _ IIA-2, 3, 4; IIB-2; IIC-1-,. 2, 3A, 38, 4, S, 6;
- IID-1, 2; IIE-1. 'lhese matters should be dealt with by the NRC Staff and the Applicant, as appropriate, when solutions are found.
". -~
Honorable Joseph *February 15, 1979 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards believes that, if due regard is given to the matters mentioned above, and subject to satisfactory' com-pletion of construction and preoperational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit-2 can be operated at power levels up to 3411 Mwt without tmdue risk to the health and safety of the public.
References.
Max W. Carbon Chainnan
- 1. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, with amendments 1 through 43.
- 4.
Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 3, by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, u. S *. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, NtJREX;-0492, dated.December 29, 1978 *.
- 3. Letter to o. D. Parr, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Light Water Reactors Branch 3, from R. L. Mitt!, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, concerning additional infonnation on single. failure criteria
.related to pump seal for RCP, dated January 4, 1979.
- 4.
Letter to O. D. Parr, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Light Water Reactors Branch 3, from R.
L~ Mitt!, Public.Service Electric and Gas Company, concerning addi tionai info nnation on emergency action levels, dated January 8, 1979.
- 5. Letters from members of the Public:
. a. Letter to E. G. !gne, ACRS Staff; from Phyllis Zitzer; of the Com~
mittee for Application of Nuremberg Principles to U. s. Nuclear Power Production, dated J'3nuary 18, 1979.*
- b. L9tter to E. G. Igne, ACRS. Staff, from Joseph Blotnic~, dated January 25, 1979.
- c. Letter to E.G. Igne,ACRS.Staff, from Jill Higgins, of the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition, dated January 25, 1979.
- v Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie 4 -
February 15, 1979
- d.
- Letter to E. G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Nanci L. Reynolds, dated January 26, 1979.
- e.
Letter to E. G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Roy Money, dated January 29, 1979.
- f.
Letter to E. G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Frieda Berryhill, of Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement, dated January 30, 1979.
- g. Letter to E. G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Mary Lesser, dated February 4, 1979.
-1