ML20052C814
| ML20052C814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052C811 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205050571 | |
| Download: ML20052C814 (3) | |
Text
- [>@ M CQo 4
UNITED STATES
['
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 41 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-272 AND 50-311 Introduction In a letter of November 6,1981, we informed Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) of the status of our review of the purge and vent system at Salem Unit No. 1.
This review covers several concerns that were initially identified in our letter of November 28, 1978, as well as subsequent concerns that were incorporated into Item II.E.4.2 of the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0737).
The licensee's responses dated December 22, 1981, January 15, 1982 and February 3,1982 have enabled us to close out all of the items of our long-term review for both Unit Nos.1 and 2 except for demonstration of the operability of the Pressure-Vacuum Relief System.
These responses also have enabled us to approve the licensee's commitment to seal closed unqualified valves as required by sub-item number 6 of Item II.E.4.2.
This was the only unresolved issue in this Action Item.
Evaluation A.
Conformance to Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4 Revision 1 and Branch Technical Position CSB 6-7 Revision 1 Our Safety Evaluation on this subject was transmitted with our November 6,1981 letter, with four open items.
Those items have been satisfied as follows:
1.
The licensee in its letter of December 22, 1981 confirmed that the debris screens installed at Unit No. 1 are identical to those that were approved by the staff for Unit No. 2 in Supple-ment 4 to the Salem Unit No. 2 SER.
2.
The licensee in its letter of December 22, 1981, committed to limit the use of the Pressure-Vacuum Relief System on Unit No. 1 to that required for safety related reasons and to a limit of 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per year.
The same commitment was made for Unit 2 in a letter of February 3,1982.
e205050571 820419 PDR ADOCK 05000 P
,.. 3.
The licensee, in its letter of January 15, 1982, proposed revisions in the Technical Specifications for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to immobilize the supply and exhaust valves in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The staff agrees that immobility action of valves by isolating the control air to the valve operators and by tagging the valves out of service is equivalent to " locking closed" these valves. This completes action on Requirement 6 of Item II.E.4.2 in NUREG-0737. All of the requirements of this Action Item have now been met for both units.
4.
The licensee, in their letter of January 15, 1982, proposed Surveillance Technical Specifications for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to test the leakage integrity of the Purge and Exhaust Valves as well as the Vacuum-Relief Valves at least once per six months. This requirement meets the intent of Branch Technical Position (BTP) CSB 6-4 and is acceptable for both units.
B.
Safety Activation Signal Override Our Safety Evaluation Report for this subject was enclosed with our letter of November 6,1981. This SER contained one open item; i.e.,
the necd for adequate physical protection for the containment ventilation isolation reset push button switches located in the control room.
In their letter of December 22, 1981 the licensee described the protective system installed at Unit No. 1.
This system consists of plexiglass covers that have been placed over the pushbutton bezels on the main control console. These covers contain holes over pushbuttons for functions other than reset of the containment ventilation isolation to allow the operator to depress other buttons on the bezel.
These protective devices are acceptable.
C.
Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.141 states that the radiation monitors that initiate containment ventilation isolation shall be safety grade. As stated in our letter of November 6,1981, the licensee need not commit to this action until Revision 1 is approved.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do 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 amendments involve an action which is insig-nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declar-ation and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
.- Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: April 19,1982
~.
l l
l l
l l
... -.. - -