ML25195A135

02-15-79 Report on Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2

ML25195A135
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	02/15/1979
From:	Carbon M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Hendrie J NRC/Chairman
References
Download: ML25195A135 (1)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Olairman

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C. 20555 February 15. 1979

Subject:

REPORT 00 SALF.M NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIOO UNIT 2

Dear Dr. Hendrie:

During its 226th meeting, February 8-10, 1979, the Advisory Committee on Reactor safeguards canpleted its review of the application of the Pub-lic Service Electric and Gas Canpany, et al for authorization to operate the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2. 'lllis project was initially considered in connection with the review of Salem Unit 1 and at a Sub-committee meeting in Washington, D. c. on January 24, 1979. A tour of the facility was made by Committee members on January 25, 1979. niring its review the Comrnittee had the benefit of discussions with represen-tatives and consultants of the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) Staff, as well as comments fran members of the public. 'llle Com-mittee also had the benefit of the documents listed.

'Ihe Committee reported on the application for a construction permit for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in its letter of June 21, 1968. 1he Committee reported on the application for an operatirv;i li-cense for Unit 1 in its letter of February 14, 1975, at which time it de-ferred its operatirv;i license review of Unit 2 until a time somewhat closer to the expected start of operations.

In January 1978, the NRC Staff began a re-review of Salem Unit 2 to con-sider charv;ies in NRC regulations or requirements, changes in the design of the plant, and operating experience with Salem Unit 1. Ole piase of this re-review has included current generic matters such as fire protection, in-dustrial security, emergency plannirv;i, and A'IWS.

For these matters, the NRC Staff is reviewing both Units 1 and 2, and it is expected that the resolu-tion will be substantially the same for both ll'lits.

The other phase of the re-review has addressed the degree to which Salem Unit 2 conforms to the provisions of Regulatory Guides and Branch Techni-cal Positions that have been adopted since the operating license review was made for Salem Unit 1. 1hese items include those classified by the 1418

Honorable Joseph February 15, 1979 Regul~tory Requirements Review Committee as Category 2 (backfit on a case-by-case basis) and as Category 3 (backfit on all plants). A canparable review of Salem Unit 1 (which initially was identical to Unit 2) is being carried out by the Division of Operating Reactors on a different time scale. 'lbe NRC Staff has stated that the reviews for Units 1 and 2 are, or will be, coordinated to provide consistency between the two lD'lits.

'lbe NRC Staff's re-review of Salem Unit 2 is essentially canplete and will be completed before an operating license is issued. 'lbere are four out-standing issues still under review or for which canplete documentation has not yet been received. '!here are also six items for which the NRC Staff requires only confirmatory docwnentation regarding their resolution. 'lhe Committee believes that all of these outstanding issues and confirmatory items can and should be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff.

In its review of Salem Unit 1 and of the Hope Creek lD'lits at the same site, the Committee expressed its concern about the p:>ssibilities of accidents involving waterborne traffic on the Delaware River that might be of such a nature as to affect the safety of the plants. '!his ques-tion has been addressed by the NRC Staff and the Applicant on a probabil-istic basis in connection with the reviews of both the Salem and Hope Creek plants. 'lbe Committee believes that the results of these studies provide a reasonable basis for assuming that the probabilities, and thus the risks, of such accidents are sufficiently low as not to provide an undue risk to the health and safety of the public. 'lhe Committee, how-ever, continues to be concerned about accidents of this nature and be-lieves that the p:>tential hazards should continue to be reviewed fran time to time as the local conditions may change and as the extent and reliabil-ity of the data base may be increased.

'lbe Committee recommends that the NRC Staff establish criteria for the imple-mentation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, *instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Conditions During,and Following an Accident,* as soon as practicable. 'lhe Committee believes that Position c.3 of this Guide should be implemented on Salem Unit 2 to the extent prac-ticable.

With reg~rd to the generic items cited in the Committee's rep:,rt, *status of Generic Items Relating to Light-Water Reactors: Rep:>rt No. 6,* dated November 15, 1977, those items considered relevant to salem Unit 2 are:

II-2, 3, SB, 6, 7, 9, 10; IIA-2, 3, 4; IIB-2; IIC-1, 2, JA, 3B, 4, 5, 6; IID-1, 2; IIE-1. 'lhese matters should be dealt with by the NRC Staff and the Applicant, as appropriate, when solutions are found.

1419

Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie 3 -

February 15, 1979 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards believes that, if due regard is given to the matters mentioned above, and subject to satisfactory com-pletion of construction and preoperational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 can be operated at power levels up to 3411 Mwt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Mr. J. J. Ray did not participate in the Committee's review of this project.

Sincerely,

~g)~

Chairman References

1. salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, with amendments 1 through 43.

2. safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 3, by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al, salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, NUREG-0492, dated December 29, 1978.

3.

Letter to o. D. Parr, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Light Water Reactors Branch 3, from R. L. Mittl, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, concerning additional information on single failure criteria related to pump seal for RCP, dated January 4, 1979.

4.

Letter to O. D. Parr, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Light Water Reactors Branch 3, from R. L. Mittl, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, concerning additional information on emergency action levels, dated January 8, 1979.

5.

Letters from members of the Public:

a. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Phyllis Zitzer, of the Com-mittee for Application of Nuremberg Principles to U. s. Nuclear Power Production, dated January 18, 1979.

b. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Joseph Slotnick, dated January 25, 1979.

c. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Jill Higgins, of the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition, dated January 25, 1979.

Page Revised:

2/22/79 1420

Honorable Joseph February 15, 1979

d. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Nanci L. Reynolds, dated January 26, 1979.

e. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Roy Money, dated January 29, 1979.

f. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Frieda Berryhill, of Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement, dated January 30, 1979.

g. Letter to E.G. Igne, ACRS Staff, from Mary Lesser, dated February 4, 1979.

1421