ML18086B556
| ML18086B556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B555 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207200023 | |
| Download: ML18086B556 (2) | |
Text
[
e e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, Introduction PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311
£y letter dated May*28, 1982, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the
- licen.seeFreqaested_that Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 for Salem Nuclear*
General-ing-Station, Unit No. 2 (Salem.2) be amended.
The proposed amendment would extend the date for installation of i16dine/parti cul ate sampling equipment until the first refueling outa.ge for ~his unit.
Background
As a consequence of the TMI-2 accident the NRC has required, among other things, that all operating plants have the capability to collect and analyze or measure representative.sampl~s of radioactive iodines and particulates in plant gas~ous effluents during and following an accident.
This requirement is described in detail in NUREG-0737 11 Clarification of TMI Acti'on Plant Requirements" (Item II.F.1.2).
Each plant was to implement this capability by January 1, 1982 and this requirement was made a condition of the Salem-2 operating license which was issued on May 20, l981.
Because of difficulty locating and o~dering qualified equipment, the licensee subsequently requested that the implementation date be extended to June 1, 1982.
ThiS request was approved and the operating license so amended by letter dated December 31, 1 981.
Evaluation The 1 icensee proposes to make common use of tt;_e pl ant vent penetration for both the iodirie/particul ate sampling system and the noble gas effluent monitoring system, whtch is: alSo required by NUREG-0737. IIJ*thei:r initial request for extension df time the licensee.stated that the 10-weeks work required to
.- s2oi20002.3-s207oe
' PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
~-
....... t:..
install the sampling system could be accomplished while the plant was operating.
This conclusion was based on the fact that the installation introduced no physical restriction on any system required for plant operation. Subsequently, the licensee has advised the staff tha.t the scaffolding that is needed to perform part of the installation must be erected above the discharges of certain steam line safety valves thereby introducing an unacceptable personnel hazard when the plant is operating. This phase of the installation will require approximately one to two weeks when the plant is shut down.
As noted in the Safety Evaluation that approved extension of the implementation schedule to June 1 ~ 1982, the plant*s existing sampling system provides an acceptable level of protection on an interim basis. Therefore, we consider the risk to the health and safety of the public resulting from the continued use of this temporary system, until the end of the current fuel cycle, to be acceptably low.
The licensee should take the necessary measures to prevent any additiom~1 delays beyond the first refueling outage for the implementation of this capability.*
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result. in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (l) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a
. significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation.in the proposed manner, and {3). such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the heal th and safety of the pubHc.
Date: July 8, 1982