ML20246D422
| ML20246D422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1989 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246D425 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907110321 | |
| Download: ML20246D422 (4) | |
Text
W gl
. "4 t
x
.y
.m x
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-272/311 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
.AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering issuance of a number of. exemptions from the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 to Public Service end Gas Company, et. al., for the Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located at the licensee's site in Salem County, New Jersey.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I
Identification of Proposed Action:
The licensee's request for the exemptions and the bases therefore are contained in a letter dated July 15, 1988. The exemptions relieve th,e licensee from the technical requirements concerning:
1.
non-3-hour fire-rated features in 3-hour fire barriers in various areas of the plants (l.icensee Exemption 1);
2.
lack of a fixed fire suppression system in the control room (Licensee Exemption 2);
3.
lack of an automatic fire suppression system in the reactor plant auxiliary equipmert area, elevations 100 and 110 feet (Licensee Exemption 3);
4.
lack of an automatic fire suppression system in the inner piping penetrationarea(LicenseeExemption4);
3.
lack of an autunatic fire suppression system in the reactor ~ plant auxiliary building, elevation 64 feet (Licensee Exemption 10);
6.
lack of an autmatic fire suppression system in the mechanical penetration areas, elevations 78 and 100 feet (Licensee Exemption 5);
8907110321 890706 I
PDR ADOCK 0500027.2 F
y y
'*' 7 lack of complete 1-hour fire rated barriers between redundant shutdown systems and a manually actuated fire suppression system in lieu of an automatic system in the 460V switchgear room (Licensee Exemption 6);
8.
. lack of complete 1-hour fire rated barriers between redundant shutdown systems in the lower electrical penetration area (Licensee Exemption 8);
9.
lack of complete 1-hour fire rated barriers between redundant shutdown -
systems in the 4160 V switchgear room (Licensee Exemption 9);
)
10.
lack of complete 1-hour fire-rated barriers or 20 feet free of intervening combustibles between redundant systems in the reactor plant auxiliary equipment area, elevation 84 feet (Licensee Exemption 7);
11.
lack of complete 3-hour fire barriers between redundant shutdown systems in the 'RHR pump and heat exchanger areas (Licensee Exemption 13);
12.
lack of 20 feet of separation free of intervening combustibles between redundantshutdownsystemsincontainment(LicenseeExemption12);
13.
lack of an autocatic fire suppression system and the absence of 20 feet of spatial separation between redundant systems in the pipe tunnel, elevation 84 feet (Licensee Exemption 14); and 14.
lack of an automatic fire suppression system in the C0 equipment room, 2
elevation 84 feet (Licensee Exemption 15).
The need for the proposed action:
The proposed exemptions are needed because the features described in the licensee's request regarding the existing fire protection at the two plants for 1
these items are the most practical means for meeting the intent of Appendix R
{
l and literal compliance would not significantly enhance the fire protection
{
capability.
l l
J
'O.,
i Environmental Impacts of the Proposed A: tion:
i The proposed exemptions will provict a degree of fire protection that is L
J equivalent to that required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R for the affected areas of the' plant such that there is no increase in the risk of fires at this facility. Consequently, the proposed exemptions will not:
increase the probability of fires; increase the post-fire radiological releases beyond those previously determined nor otherwise affect radiological plant effluents; and increase the probability or consequences of any reactor accident.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there is no significant radiological-environmental impacts associated with these proposed exemptions.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed exemptions i'nvolve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-radiological plan't effluents and have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concwdes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no measurable environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions, any alternatives to the exemptions will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemptions. Such action would not reduce the environmental impacts of Salem Units 1 and 2 operations and wouid require additional time and resources to bring the facility into literal compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R with no significant enhancement of the fire protection capability.
q 3
-4 Alternative Use of Resources:
These actions do not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2," dated April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
i The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request that supports the proposed exemptions. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDINGS OF NO ' 1GNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed exemptions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare and environmental impact statement for the proposed exemptions.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's request for the exemptions dated July 15, 1988, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. and at the Salem Free County Public Library,112 W. Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6
day of July 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (5
v Walter Butler, Director Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
____ _ _-__-_-____ _._____ _