ML20027C877

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 48 & 13 to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,respectively

ML20027C877
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	10/18/1982
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20027C875	List: ML20027C874 ML20027C877 ML20027C878
References
NUDOCS 8210270360
Download: ML20027C877 (6)

Text

.,

.c..,... e ~.

. ~.

..w...,,~.

. <, w.........:

j

"%j,o 8

UNITED STATES 3

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

s l

wasnmoTow, p. c. 2oses

...../

I:

f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICF OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 48 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70

)_

AND AtiENDMENT NO. 13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-75 l

.i PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, 4

^

DEU4ARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND a_ _ _,

ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY

".~

t

~

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 1

DOCKET N05. 50-272 AND 50-311 N

Introduction

i In a letter dated August 10, 1981, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request to modify Table 2.3-4 of Salem, Unit Nos. I and 2, Environmental Technical Specifications. This table indicates the location of process and effluent monitors and samplers required by technical specifications.

In a subsequent letter dated June 22, 1982, the licensee revised its pro-posed revision to Table 2.3-4 and, in addition, proposed modifications to Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 of the Safety Technical Specifications and Table 2.3-2 of the Environmental Technical Specifications. Table 3.3-3 presents the engineered safety feature actuation system instrumentation. Table 3.3-6 presents the radiation monitoring instrumentation. Table 2.3-2 contains l

l the various gaseous waste sampling and analysis requirements for all effluent l

release points and processes such as waste gas decay tank releases and containment purges. The changes to these tables are proposed to reflect the as-built monitoring system of Salem, Unit No. 2, and the modifications which are proposed for Unit No.1.

The licensee requested that Table 2.3-4 he amended to reflect the as-built process and effluent monitoring system of Unit No. 2 and for approval of the modification to the Unit No.1 process and effluent monitoring system I

which will make it identical to the Unit No. 2 system. The present table i

reflects the Unit No. I as-built condition but does not reflect Unit No. 2 as-built condition for the plant vent, reactor containment building, and waste gas discharge line.

l l

i 8210270360 821018 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P

PDR

u.-

x-n..

. x..,

a..

,~.a..-

e..u. wm. 3 w.v.-

i d

~

Presently the waste gas discharge line of Unit No.1 is monitored by gaseous c

monitor 1-R14 while Unit No. 2 does not have such a monitor. A high radia-tion signal from this monitor will automatically close the gas release valve in the Waste Disposal System of Unit No.1 For Unit No. 2 the same function is performed by the gaseous monitor 2-R41C which is at the plant a

vent. Unit No. 2 does not have a separate monitor in the gas discharge line.

^

Flow from the containment purge of Unit No.1 is monitored at the plant W

vent by air particulate, noble gas and radioiodine monitors 1-Ril A 1-R12A, and 1-R12B, respectively. These monitors also have the capability of sampling the containment atmosphere. A high radiation signal from any one of these monitors will initiate closure of the vacuum-relief line and/or the contain-ment purge.

For Unit No. 2, this monitoring function is served by plant s

vent monitors 2-R41A, 2-R418, and 2-R41C. Radiation monitors 2-Ril A, 2-R12A, and 2-R12B monitor exclusively the containment atmosphere at Unit No. 2.

3 The licensee requested that Table 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 of the Unit No.1 Safety Technical Specifications be modified to reflect the proposed monitoring design changes. These changes would result in existing monitors 1-RilA, y

1-R12A, and 1-R128 being utilized to monitor the containment atmosphere exclusively while new monitors 1-R41A,1-R41B and 1-R41C would be utilized to monitor plant vent releases. These new monitors would also function as containment purge isolation monitors when the purge / vacuum relief isolation valves were open. However, while in this mode of operation, the licensee proposed that the monitors setpoints would be lowered. The present footnote in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 indicates that monitors 1-Ril A,1-R12A and 1-R12B can be utilized to monitor the plant vent effluent rather than monitoring containment atmosphere for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> interval while either purging the containment atmosphere or venting a gas decay tank. With the proposed monitoring changes at Unit No I this footnote would no longer be a ppl ica bl e.

For Unit No. 2 Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 were proposed to be modified to clarify the footnote that the set points for the unit vent monitors (2-R41 series) would be lowered when functioning in the containment atmosphere isolation i

mode during purge or vacuum relief operations with these valves open.

The licensee also proposed that Table 2.3-2 of the Environmental Technical l

Specifications be clarified so that sampling and analysis of the containment would not be required for pressure-vacuum relief operations.

Evaluation and Findings

(-

The staff has conducted an independent review and analysis of the potential radiological impact associated with the amending of Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-4 of the Environmental Technical Specifications and Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 of the Safety Technical Specifications.

xE:LiMs a.a L.

a.

...:.....whld:% a,

.~.

u.i w

'i!

!=

u A.

Radioactive Release Considerations H

The amending of Table 2.3-4 to reflect the as-built process and effluent monitoring system of Unit No. 2 will result in no additional releases 1

of airborne effluents from Unit No. 2 since the change would only y

acknowledge the present system at Unit No. 2.

The proposed modification

~

to Unit No. I to make it identical to Unit No. 2, does present the u

y!

possibility that additional airborne effluents could occur as a result

.i of the new process and effluent monitoring system. The proposed modifi-

.Y cation to the Unit No. I system would eliminate monitor 1-R14 This N

monitor, which monitors the discharge from the gas decay tanks, presently ij causes the gas release valve to close automatically on a high radiation a

signal. In the proposed modification to Unit'No.1, a monitor 1-R41C, located at the plant vent, would close the gas release valve on a high radiation signal. The additional releases associated with the proposed modifications would occur because the monitor 1-R14 can close the valve sooner than the monitor at the plant vent. If the monitor, 1-R14, Q

exceeded its setpoint, then the plant vent monitor R41C would relay m

~

the high radiation signal to the control room less than i second later

?

than if the 1-R14 monitor was still in the gas discharge line. At a maximum flow rate of 150 cfm this would result in an additional 2.5 ft3 of discharge would be an extremely small fraction of the annual anticipated rel ea se. The doses associated with such activity would Se a small A

fraction of the annual beta and gamma air doses resulting from normal opera tion. Thus, the impact of this monitoring change will be minimal and is therefore acceptable'.

'With the acceptance of the proposed mo'nitoring change to'" nit No.1, the"

~

changes to the footnotes in Tables 3.3-3 and.3.3-6'are also acceptable as these changes would then reflect the' actual monitoring conditions.

The change to the footnote to Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 is acceptable

~

because this change recognizes the lowering of the setpoint when the containment atmosphere !s monitored during purge / pressure vacuum relief- -

operations and does not impact.either plant releases or the health and sa fety of the public.

~ _

l The change to Table 2.3-2 distinguishes between-sampling and analysis requirements for containment purges and pressure-vacuum relief operations.

There is no need to sample and analyze the containment prior to

('

pressure-vacuum relief operations'as the discharge will be short term s

in nature. Therefore, the change to Table 2.3-2 is acceptable. The r

change to Table 2.3-4 to reflect the as-built condition of Unit No.

2..

is also acceptable as it involves no increase in effluents nor a decrease in the safety margin for the plant as-1t presently exists.

l Based upon the above evaluation, we conclude that the health and safety I

of the public will not-be endangered by (1) amending Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-4 of the Environmental Technical Specifications, (2) modifying.

Unit No.1 process and effluent monitoring system, and (3) changing Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 to reflect the changes to Unit No.1 process and

(

~

t

+.,

e

.. ~.. :, ~,

.,n.

- a::

-a

~

' a =: u &

pi.

ld a

i i

,4 effluent monitoring system and the as-built monitoring system for Unit No. 2.

In addition, the amending of these tables and the modifi-cation to the Unit No.1 process and effluent monitoring system will 9

not increase the probaSility or consequences of accidents and does not involve a decrease in safety margin nor involve a significant hazards g

consideration.

~i Conclusion H

r3 We have concluded, liased on the considerations discussed above, that:

1 (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public

!]

will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such 7,

activities will be conducted in compifance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, 4

f Date: October 18, 1982

'j SER prepared by J. Hayes (ITSB) h W. Ross (ORB #1)

• i a

-t Y

e' l

l l

l l

,w v: n.: :/....

2..,

s.

... w 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REGARDING AMENDING TABLES 2.3-2 AND 2.3-4 0F THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND TABLES 3.3-3 AND 3.3-6 0F THE SAFETY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2

?.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company j

Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 p!

,i 2

Introduction Public Service Electric and Gas Company is presently licensed to operate the Salem Nuclear Generating Station located on Artificial Island on the Delaware River in Lower A110 ways Township, Salem County, New Jersey. There are two pressurized water reactors at the site, each reactor capable of generating f

3250 MWt of power. The proposed amending of Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-4 of the l

Station's Environmental Technical Specifications, Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 of the Station's Safety Technical Specifications, and the modifications to the Unit No.1 process and effluent monitoring system will not affect the reactor power level nor the fuel burnup and, therefore, not affect the bene-fits of the electrical power production considered in the Comm'ission's Final Environmental Statement, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311.

A.

Radiological Impact

. As evaluated in the associated Safety Evaluation, the proposed request does not affect the conclusions of the initial SER which were that the process and effluent monitoring system assures that releases during nonnal operation meet the limits of Table 2, Column 1 of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20.

, :.u.

a.

e-l. c.,.

..:. a... >..

...-(

In addition, the amending of these tables and the Unit 1 process and effluent nonitoring system does not negate the fact that releases will I

be acceptable during normal operation and low probability accidents y.

and within the "as low as reasonably achievable" requirements of 10 CFR

[,

Part 50, Aprendix I.

The change in nonitoring location of waste gas discharges would result in no more than one second of additional flow from the waste gas decay tank. The activity released would be a very small fraction of the an-nual effluents from the plant and the associated doses would be a like-wise small fraction of the annual beta and gamma air doses anticipated from the units.

B.

Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact attributable to the amend-ing of Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-4 of the Environmental Technical Specifica-tions, Table 3.3-3 and 3.3-6 of the Safety Technical Specifications, and the proposed modification to the Unit No. I process and effluent monitoring system.

As a result of this conclusion, the Commission has further con-cluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action i

need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropri ate.

t l

EIA prepared by J. Hayes LETSB)

W. Ross (ORB #11

.