ML18093A285

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75, Consisting of License Change Request 87-12,extending Expiration Dates to 160813 for Unit 1 & 200418 for Unit 2. Personnel Exposure Repts Encl.Fee Paid

ML18093A285
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/03/1987
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NLR-N87142, NUDOCS 8708110119
Download: ML18093A285 (10)

Text

... 1 .... *-...._}

I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Han cocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Senior Vice President -

Nuclear August 3, 1987 NLR-N87142 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATIONS UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for Amendment, and an analysis of the requested changes to Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. It is our desire to have NRC review of this Amendment request completed by December 15, 1987.

This amendment requests that the expiration dates of the Salem Unit 1 and 2 FOLs be restated such that expiration of the licenses occurs 40 years from the data of original issuance.

Presently, the FOLs both expire as of midnight September 25, 2008. The new expiration dates for the Salem Unit 1 and 2 FOLs would be August 13, 2016 and April 18, 2020, respectively.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.91, a copy of this request for Amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. This submittal consists of one (1) signed original and thirty-seven (37) copies.

Additionally, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed as required by 10CFR170.21.

Should there be any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, r----er1oa1 lo rr9 s7oso3 ----- ---~,

' PDR ADOCK osoooatA.

P PDR ,

Attachments

Document Control Desk 2 8-3-87 C Mr. D. c. Fischer USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. J. Kenny USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. w. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. D. M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628

Ref: LCR 87-12 STATE OP.--NEW JERSEY )

) SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM )

Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Senior Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated August 3, 1987 , concerning Facility Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

~-- _,..

Subscril?J:d and Swor~ befpre me this 3 . day of ~~ , 1987

/)

'f-/ /-~,/4' j1t'-&i~ .*. ~

L lARAINE Y. BEARD ttNotary P1yH ic of New Jersey Notary Public of New Jersey My Co°'mission E1lpiresMay 1, 1991 My Commission expires on

---

~

( ... _.

OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS 1 AND 2 LICENSE CHANGE RBQUEST 87-12 PROPOSED CHANGE The requested license amendment proposes to revise the Operating Licenses for Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 such that the expiration dates of those licenses would be extended to August 13, 2016 and April 18, 2020 respectively.

REASON FOR CHANGE Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 are currently licensed for a term of 40 years, calculated from the issuance of the construction permit and, as such, expire on September 25, 2008. This results in an effective operating life of 32 years for Salem Unit 1 and 28 years for Salem Unit 2. The requested extension would allow for a 40 year operating life for both Salem Units. The granting of such an extension is provided for under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. 51, and is consistent with established Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy.

Continued operation of the Salem Units will allow PSE&G to postpone the large capital expenditure required for the installation of new capacity and thereby contribute to greater rate stability for PSE&G customers. Additionally, communities located in the vicinity of the Salem site would benefit from extended operation of the Salem Units through tax revenues paid by PSE&G and through the additional commerce generated by the work force located at the site.

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION The Salem Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was developed on the assumption of 40 years of operation at a thermal power level of 3411 Mwt. The validity of previously analyzed transients and abnormal operating occurrences identified in the FSAR were recently verified as part of the Salem Unit No. 1 power uprate application. That application was approved February 6, 1986 as Amendment No. 71 to the Salem Unit No. 1 Operating License. Therefore, the original licensing bases fully support the requested license extension and no licensing issues need be reconsidered.

Public Service Electric and Gas has evaluated those issues which are most directly affected by continued operation of the Salem Units. Principal among these is the projection of 1

• ~

neutron fluence effects upon the reactor vessel. Based upon our submittal of January 20, 1986, in response to the final rule on Pressurized Thermal Shock, it is concluded that a 40 year service life will not result in reactor vessel RT D values in excess of the NRC screening criteria. Contintlea evaluation of the service life of the reactor vessel will be accomplished through the analysis of material specimens located within the vessel itself and through maintenance of a comprehensive in-service inspection and testing program.

All safety related electrical equipment required for accident mitigation has been reviewed and analyzed in accordance with the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide

1. 97, IE Bulletin 79-0lB, DOR Guidelines and NUREG 0588.

Those analyses assumed a 40 year operating life. Any equipment aging concerns have been identified and incorporated into the appropriate equipment maintenance and replacement programs. Further, in accordance with our letter dated February 19, 1985, a program has been implemented to satisfy the requirements of 10CFR50.49.

Replacement of degraded safety related equipment is an ongoing process for all nuclear power facilities. For Salem, such replacements are performed in accordance with established procedures which take into account the applicable Quality Assurance Criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. Additionally, replacements are performed either in-kind or with upgraded equipment which meets or exceeds the original equipment specifications. A comprehensive program of in-service inspection and testing has been implemented to identify safety related equipment degradation prior to the occurrence of a failure. Should such a failure occur, the Technical Specifications conservatively define to the operators the requirements for continued plant operation or shutdown.

With respect to local area demographics, a comparison of 1970 census data utilized during the Salem Units 1 and 2 licensing proceedings and the more recent data from the 1980 census shows that a significant reduction occurred in the population residing within the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone. Attachment 1 provides a comparison of population data which was prepared for the Salem Station (1970 census basis) and the Hope Creek Station (1980 census data). This comparison indicates that the values given in the Salem FSAR will continue to be conservative through the year 2020.

Attachment 2 provides updated (1980 census) population data for selected cities and towns located in the vicinity of the site.

We have upgraded the Salem Generating Station Radiation Protection Program including procedures, personnel training, radiological audits and assessment, and significantly 2

increased our awareness and commitment to the ALARA concept.

This commitment has already led to reductions in personnel exposures, the volume of radioactive waste generated, and the number of contaminated areas. Based on this commitment, occupational exposure during the period covered by the requested amendment is not a significant consideration. We have included as Attachment 3 to this application, the annual summary data for radiation worker exposures for the period January 1976 through December 1986.

In connection with this evaluation, the Environmental Report (June 30, 1973), Supplemental Environmental Report (November 5, 1971) and the Final Environmental Statement (April 1973) were reviewed. There are two areas in these documents where a specific operating life was assumed or discussed:

1. Resource Recovery - Uranium Fuel Cycle

2. Cost Benefit Analysis The conclusions reached in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) relative to the uranium fuel cycle were based on the assumption of a 30 year operating life with reprocessing of spent fuel. Since the issuance of the FES, the demand for uranium fuel has decreased sharply due to the cancellation or postponement of many proposed nuclear facilities. This reduction in demand substantially reduces the impact on the uranium fuel cycle, as only an additional seven full core loads will be required to support extended operation of both Salem uni ts. Al though current policy does not permit the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel in the United States, the ongoing Department of Energy program to establish a monitored retrievable high level radioactive waste repository does not preclude future reprocessing activities.

For these reasons, the impact on the uranium fuel cycle is considered to be insignificant.

A thirty year operating life was also used for the purpose of cost benefit comparisons. This assumption was consistent with standard accounting practices of the time and not necessarily related to an expected operating term.

Reconsideration of those comparisons at this time would not be appropriate as both Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are fully constructed and operational.

In addition to the issues addressed in the above paragraphs, the FES identifies several post-operational ecological effects studies to be conducted following receipt of the Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs).

These requirements were originally incorporated into Appendix B of the FOLs. The results of those studies indicated that the operation of the Salem Generating Station does not present a threat to the local aquatic environment.

3 to this application summarizes the status and results of each of the studies. The requirement to maintain these programs has since been deleted from the FOLs (Amendment 59 and 28).

The New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the Salem Generating Station now regulates facility operation to assure protection of the aquatic environment.

NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION Consistent with the Commission's criteria (10 CFR 50.92) for determining whether a proposed amendment to an operating license involves a significant hazards consideration, we have determined that:

1) The proposed change does not increase the probability or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. A 40 year service life was assumed in the design and construction of the plant and no physical, procedural or programmatic modifications are required to support extended operation.

2) The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. No physical changes in plant equipment or operating procedures are required to support extended operation.

3) The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The various accident analyses described in the FSAR assumed a 40 year operating life at a thermal power level of 3411 Mwt. The proposed change does not involve operation beyond a forty year period or an increase in the licensed power level of either Salem Unit No. 1 or 2.

Based on the above, it is concluded that a significant hazards consideration does not exist relative to the requested extension of the Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Operating Licenses. Additionally, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing representative examples (48 FR 14870).

Example (vii) of those relating to a no significant hazards determination discusses a change to make a license conform to changes in the regulations but where the change has a minor effect on facility operations and is clearly in keeping with regulation. The proposed change bearing upon license duration (10 CFR 50.51) involves a similar change.

4

/

ATTACHMENT 1 COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS(l, 2 )

0 - SO MILES SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS MILES 1970( 3 ) 1980( 3 ) 1987 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 0 - 1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 - 2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 - 3 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 - 4 303/NA 367/261 NA/289 66S/299 893/331 1207/331 1600/346 NA/3S7 0 - s 1177 /NA 140S/1190 NA/1286 2SS1/132S 3294/146S 4300/146S S622/1S17 NA/1S6S 0 - 10 0 - 20 0 - 30 0 - 40 2S144/NA 378S89/NA 8601S9/NA 2603S98/NA 29488/22162 47S169/362800 10S8119/904000 2976478/28SS900 NA/24193 NA/39S600 NA/1009100 NA/2979000 40807/2487S S9S272/40S900 1290071/1029200 3477743/3021800 49962/27380 69S463/4S3700 lS 72220/ 1119300 3990381/3186000 62101/27380 825722/4S3700 183446S/1119300 4S73681/3186000 76617/28042 962447/469200 2180329/llSlOOO S26169S/3247700 NA/28921 NA/484300 NA/1181200 NA/3311300 0 - so 4744SS1/NA 5366006/4933000 NA/SS01400 6139181/S6S9000 6923869/S96S200 7864S19/S96S200 8924121/60S4800 NA/6223900 Notes

1) Population projections have been excerpted from the Salem and Hope Creek Safety Analysis Reports and are

2) Projections for Salem are based on 1970 census data. Projections for Hope Creek are based on expressed as Salem/Hope Creek.

1980 census data. These projections were prepared in accordance with the methodologies described in the respective Final Safety Analysis Reports.

3) 1970 and 1980 populations for Salem and Hope Creek, respectively, are actual census data.

I

'1 e ATTACHMENT 2 CENTERS OF POPULATION NEAR THE SALEM SITE 1970(1) 1980( 2 )

City, State Population Population Distance Salem, NJ 7648 6959 8 Bridgeton, NJ 20435 18795 16 Newark, DE 20757 25247 18 Wilmington, DE 80386 70195 19 Dover, DE 17488 23507 21 Vineland, NJ 47399 53753 24 Millville, NJ 21366 24815 26 Glassboro, NJ 12938 14574 26 Chester, PA 56331 45794 27 Philadelphia, PA 1948609 1688210 33 Camden, NJ 102551 84910 38 Pleasantville, NJ 13778 13435 52 Baltimore, MD 905759 786741 55 Atlantic City, NJ 47859 40199 57

1) Data excerpted from Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis, July 15, 1983 through Revision 6.

2) 1980 Census data excerpted from the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas &

Marketing Guide, 1986, 117th Edition.

I ATTACHMENT 3 1986