ML18086A849
| ML18086A849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A848 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108100121 | |
| Download: ML18086A849 (2) | |
Text
....
~. *-*
~.
- - '\\
'1J "0(()
ti....
- oo*
(()
J>.....
t;tO 00 o.-
~flJ.
- I 0
'lit. I
- CJIOO, QI-'>
00
- -oSP:f I
,t;11-1,Q'
- o.....
SAFETY EVJ\\LUATIOtJ BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIOM RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AMO GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA PO~JER ANO LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311 On May 20, 1981, a license was issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G}, et.al. authorizing operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2 at 100 percent power (3411 megawatts thermal). Pursuant to the findings from a review of PSE&G's cable interaction study the Facility Operating License was conditioned to require the completion by specified dates of certain activities related to Fire Protection.
On July 10, 1981, PSE&G submitted a letter requesting an extension for portions of this schedule.
An on-site review of PSE&G's fire interaction study was conducted from April 30, 1981 to Mqy 7, 1981 by a team of NRG personnel.
The team's report, documented in Supplement No. 6 to Salem Safety Evaluation Report, concluded that 11 the fire_
protection measures are adequate for continued operation of Unit 1 and for issuance of a (full power) license with appropriate license conditions for Unit 2 ***
11 This report was the genesis of tne license conditions contained in paragraph 2.C(lO) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75.
Since tl1e issuance of the license for full power operation~ PSE&G has completed action on the fire protection measures which ~'/ere ',required to be in pl ace prior to operating above five percent rated thermal power.
Tile remaining modifications identified in the review team's report were recommended for completion in accordance
~'!ith PSE&G's cable wrap schedule.
By separate correspondence dated May 14, 1981, PSE&G established July 31, 1981 as its scheduled date for completion of cable wrapping.
This schedule provided reasonable assurance that the added modifications would be completed in a timely fashion and was incorporated into the ass'ociated license conditions in the Facility Operating License No. DPR-75.
Based upon current PSE&G estimates, the cable wrap schedule may be impact~d by the addition of any further corrective actions identified during the final S;tages of PSE&G's internal fire protection review.
Because of the extensive naturie\\of this re vi el/J and the benefits derived from the i den ti fi ca ti on of any def i ci end e*s *over and above those noted in the NRG team report, the staff concludes that a two v.rel~
extension of its original schedule is warranted.
,[
2 -
In addition to the specified modifications, PSE&G was required to complete a final en.3ineering verification of the fire protection m1al:-isis and corrective actions by July 15, 1981.
P.3E&G has stated that its report of this review has involved the preparation of extensive documentation including 190 new drawings, and that this effort has been SOi"iiewhat hampered by lfadtea plant access during ot;erations. 'Iherefore, PSB&G has re;iuested an e;,.tension in the schedule for ccrnpletion of this review o Because of the extensiveness of this review, its confirmatory nature, and the substantial benefits it provides, the staff concludes that a two.week extension in the original schedule is warranted and will cause no undue r fok to the heal tl1 and safety of the public.
Environmental Consideration w-= have cieterrnined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in :;;ewer level and will not result in a.**w significant environmental impact. Having made t.'1is determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standp:iint of environ.-nental imr:ect and, pursuant to 10 CPR Section 51.S(d} (4), that an environmental :L-npact statement or negative declaration and envirol1iuental imi;act appraisal need not* be prepared in connection with the issuance of *this amendment.
Conclusion He have concludedf based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendinent does not involve a significant increase in the probability or conse..Jllences of accidents previously considerE<l and does not involve a significai"1t decrease in a safety margin, the amendm~mt does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that
.the health arid safety of the public will not be enClangered by operation in the pro:posed manner, and (3) such activities will be conau::ted in compliance with t.11e C0i<vi1ission' s regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inirrdcal to the common defense and security o;::: to the healt.h and safety of tbe public.
Dated:
July 20, 1981 OFFICE.........................
SURNAME~........................
DATE~ ************************
t, NR9 FORM 318 (10*80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD.COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960