ML20246E649
| ML20246E649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246E639 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908290243 | |
| Download: ML20246E649 (3) | |
Text
_
f a
e neo o,,
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
r, a
wAsun orow,n. c. zones
\\,*****
j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 100 AND 77 TO FACILITY OPERATING l
LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY l
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION. UNIT NOS.'I AND 2.'
DOCKETNOS.50-272AND50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 27, 1588, Pubife Service Electric & Gas Comp 6ny requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendments would replace the existing Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) (Appendix B) with an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).
2.0 EVALUATION
-The following amendments have been previously issued which deleted most of the nonradiological and all of the radiological environmental monitoring programs and requirements from the ETS, Appendix B of the Salem Operating Licenses:
Amendments Purpose 19 (Unit 1 only)
Issued September 12, 1979, deleted the nonradiological ETS that were duplicated in the Section 316(b) Plan of Study required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
23 (linit 1 only)
Issued December 13, 1979, modified the ETS to place reliance on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (HPDES) permit to set delta T and maximum temperature discharge limits on Delaware River water being used for cooling.
$$h $
21
.,.4'
+=
.a 2
1 i-51/18 Issued on March 11, 1983, deleted the nonradiological water quality. related items.
59/28 Issued on December 5,'1984, transferred the radiological monitoring requirements from the ETS, Appendix B, to Appendix A to Operating Licenses DPR-70 and 75.
Environmental concerns that relate to water quality and biological monitoring will be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal, State and Local Environmental-Agencies.
Left in the ETS for Unit 1 is the requirements to monitor the nesting of diamondback terrapins and the occurrence and nesting of.the osprey and southern bald eagle in the vicinity of Artificial Island. The program.
was to continue for 5 years after Unit 2 became operational. Unit 2 -
became operational in 1981. The licensee has continued to monitor the diamondback terrapin, osprey and bald eagles and has concluded that Salem has had no adverse environmental impact on them, inus, the requirements for terrestrial monitoritT has been fulfilled.
Section 4.1 of the EPP contains provisions for raporting significant events, including
'g mortalities or unusual occurrences of endangered i;pecies (e.g., bald eagles). This is acceptable.
Part 1 of ETS for Unit 2 cor.tains requirements for Meteorological Monitoring.. These requirements are also contained ir, Section 3.3.3.4 cf Appendix A to the Ur.it I license. The Limiting Conditions for Operation requires the instruments to be operable at all times. The Action Statements associated with meteorological monitoring instruments do not prohibit Mode changes nor require a shutdown if one or more instruments are inoperable. Thus, the deletion of Part 2, Section 3.1.1.1, " Meteorological Monitoring" from the ETS is acceptable.
In recognition of past occurrences of weak fish and endangered sea turtle impingements at Salem, Section 4.1 of the EPP contains the reporting provisions of such events. This is acceptable.
Tffb remaining applicable Sections of Part 2 of the Unit 2 ETS, have been incorporated into the EPP.
The objective of the EPP is to provide for protection of the environment at the Salem site and immediate adjacent areas by (1) verification that Salem 1 and 2 are being operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, (2) providing for review of NRC requirements to maintain consistency with other Federal and State requirements for environmental protection, and (3) keeping the NRC informed of any significant environmental effects caused by facility operations and of actions taken to control these effects.
S S
-k i
.... The proposed EPP is consistent with current NRC policies with regard to environmental protection issues (since as noted above, the NRC now relies on the Environmental Protection Agency for resolution of issues involving the monitoring of water quality and biological monitoring programs, and the radiological monitoring requirements are incorporated in Appendix A of the license), consistency requirements, administrative procedures, and facility reporting requirements.
On the basis of the foregoing, tTie change to Appendix B of the Technical Specifications to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 proposed in these amendments by PSE&G for Salem Units 1 and 2, concerning the substitution of an EPP for the current ETS, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, is judged by the NRC staff to be adequate and acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendrents relate to 6anges in recordkeeping, repcrting or administrative procedures or requirements. The staff has determined that tt:a amendments involve no significant ir. crease in the amounts, arj tio significant change in the types,.of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there'is 00 significant increase is individual er cumiative occupational radiation exposure, The Commission has previously issued a propos2d finding that de amendeents invoire no significant hamds considerativa ar.d there has been no pubiic comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the c:11 categortcai exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22{c)pibility criteria for (10). Persuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no Environmersal impet statevent or environmental essessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amandments.
4.O' CONCtUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that these amendments involve -
no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 1989 (54 FR 18957) and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did nol have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the L
common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Princip.' Contributor:
H. Ashar and Jim Stone Dated: August 21, 1989 e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _