ML18093B370: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 12/27/1988
| issue date = 12/27/1988
| title = Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,replacing ETS W/Encl Environ Protection Plan (Nonradiological).Fee Paid
| title = Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,replacing ETS W/Encl Environ Protection Plan (Nonradiological).Fee Paid
| author name = MILTENBERGER S
| author name = Miltenberger S
| author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY
| author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 14: Line 14:
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
| project =
| stage = Request
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer :DEC 2 'l 1988 NLR-E88537 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
{{#Wiki_filter:..
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station (SGS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger                   Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.90(b)  
:DEC 2 'l 1988 NLR-E88537 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC                     20555 Gentlemen:
(1), a copy of the request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below. The attached proposed change deletes the existing Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) and replaces them with the enclosed Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological).
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station (SGS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.                 Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.90(b) (1), a copy of the request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.
A report entitled , "An Environmental Monitoring Program (1974-1984) on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," dated March 28, 1985 is also enclosed in support of this request. The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the conclusions of this report. Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 ETS requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit *2 becomes operational.
The attached proposed change deletes the existing Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) and replaces them with the enclosed Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological).
Unit 2 became operational in 1981. This submittal includes one (1) signed original, including affidavit, and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CFR50.4 (b) (2) (ii). ftaol ,)J f50
A report entitled , "An Environmental Monitoring Program (1974-1984) on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," dated March 28, 1985 is also enclosed in support of this request. The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the conclusions of this report. Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 ETS requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit *2 becomes operational. Unit 2 became operational in 1981.
" . ' Document Control Desk iDEC 2 'l 1988 Should you have any questions on the subject transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us. Attachment C Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Ms. K. Halvey Gibson Sincerely, Senior Resident Inspector  
This submittal includes one (1) signed original, including affidavit, and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CFR50.4 (b) (2) (ii).
-Salem Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator Region I Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
ftaol
'* ----------------------------...,....--, PROPOSED CHANGE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 Description of Change REF:LCR 88-17 Delete the existing Environmental Technical Specifications from Appendix B for both Salem Units 1 and 2 and replace them with the attached Environmental Protection Plan. Adopt the attached Environmental Protection Plan as an administrative replacement for the Environmental Technical Specifications.
                                                                                                                          ,)J f50
Reason for Change Adoption of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) in lieu of the Non-radiological Environmental Technical Specifications will provide an up-to-date definition of the station's environmental review and protection responsibilities to the NRC and standardize environmental requirements for the two units. Justification for Change The EPP reflects delegation of responsibility for aquatic environmental monitoring to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
                                                                                                                        ~ rts~t
Implementation of the EPP also terminates terrestrial monitoring requirements.
 
A summary assessment report entitled, "An Environmental Monitoring Program 1974-1984 on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," is attached as supporting documentation.
Document Control Desk                               iDEC 2 'l 1988 Should you have any questions on the subject transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.
This report concludes that Salem has had no adverse environmental impact on either the diamond terrapin or the osprey/bald eagles. The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the reported conclusions.
Sincerely, Attachment C   Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Ms. K. Halvey Gibson Senior Resident Inspector - Salem Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator Region I Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ   08625
Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit 2 becomes operational.
 
Unit 2 became operational in 1981. Adoption of an EPP for Salem has been strongly encouraged by the NRC and will be administratively controlled by the licensee in the same manner as .other non-technical specification plans and programs.
PROPOSED CHANGE TO                                   REF:LCR 88-17 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 Description of Change Delete the existing Environmental Technical Specifications from Appendix B for both Salem Units 1 and 2 and replace them with the attached Environmental Protection Plan. Adopt the attached Environmental Protection Plan as an administrative replacement for the Environmental Technical Specifications.
Significant Hazards Consideration PSE&G has evaluated the hazards consideration involved with the proposed amendment, focusing on the three standards set forth in lOCFR50.92(c) as quoted below:   "The Commission may make a final determination, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under paragraph 50.21(b) or paragraph 50.22 or for a testing facility involves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety." The following evaluation is provided for the significant hazards consideration standards.  
Reason for Change Adoption of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) in lieu of the Non-radiological Environmental Technical Specifications will provide an up-to-date definition of the station's environmental review and protection responsibilities to the NRC and standardize environmental requirements for the two units.
Justification for Change The EPP reflects delegation of responsibility for aquatic environmental monitoring to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Implementation of the EPP also terminates terrestrial monitoring requirements. A summary assessment report entitled, "An Environmental Monitoring Program 1974-1984 on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," is attached as supporting documentation.
This report concludes that Salem has had no adverse environmental impact on either the diamond terrapin or the osprey/bald eagles.
The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the reported conclusions. Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit 2 becomes operational.
Unit 2 became operational in 1981.
Adoption of an EPP for Salem has been strongly encouraged by the NRC and will be administratively controlled by the licensee in the same manner as .other non-technical specification plans and programs.
Significant Hazards Consideration PSE&G has evaluated the hazards consideration involved with the proposed amendment, focusing on the three standards set forth in 10CFR50.92(c) as quoted below:
 
                          "The Commission may make a final determination, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under paragraph 50.21(b) or paragraph 50.22 or for a testing facility involves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of th~ facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety."
The following evaluation is provided for the significant hazards consideration standards.
: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. This change merely replaces the present Environmental Technical Specifications with the Environmental Protection Plan and is administrative in nature.
This change merely replaces the present Environmental Technical Specifications with the Environmental Protection Plan and is administrative in nature. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
: 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not make any physical changes to the plant or changes in parameters governing normal plant operation.
The proposed changes do not make any physical changes to the plant or changes in parameters governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.  
: 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
: 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? As discussed above, the proposed changes are administrative and do not degrade the existing margin of safety. Therefore, changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Conclusion Based on the above safety evaluation, PSE&G concludes that the activities associated with this license amendment request satisfy the significant hazards consideration standards of 10CFR50.92(c).
As discussed above, the proposed changes are administrative and do not degrade the existing margin of safety. Therefore, changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
 
Conclusion Based on the above safety evaluation, PSE&G concludes that the activities associated with this license amendment request satisfy the significant hazards consideration standards of 10CFR50.92(c).
Accordingly, a no significant hazard consideration finding is justified.}}
Accordingly, a no significant hazard consideration finding is justified.}}

Latest revision as of 07:26, 3 February 2020

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,replacing ETS W/Encl Environ Protection Plan (Nonradiological).Fee Paid
ML18093B370
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 12/27/1988
From: Miltenberger S
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML18093B371 List:
References
NLR-E88537, NUDOCS 8901050131
Download: ML18093B370 (5)
v • d • e


Text

..

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer

DEC 2 'l 1988 NLR-E88537 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating License DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station (SGS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed. Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.90(b) (1), a copy of the request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

The attached proposed change deletes the existing Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) and replaces them with the enclosed Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological).

A report entitled , "An Environmental Monitoring Program (1974-1984) on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," dated March 28, 1985 is also enclosed in support of this request. The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the conclusions of this report. Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 ETS requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit *2 becomes operational. Unit 2 became operational in 1981.

This submittal includes one (1) signed original, including affidavit, and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CFR50.4 (b) (2) (ii).

ftaol

,)J f50

~ rts~t

Document Control Desk iDEC 2 'l 1988 Should you have any questions on the subject transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, Attachment C Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Ms. K. Halvey Gibson Senior Resident Inspector - Salem Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator Region I Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625

PROPOSED CHANGE TO REF:LCR 88-17 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 Description of Change Delete the existing Environmental Technical Specifications from Appendix B for both Salem Units 1 and 2 and replace them with the attached Environmental Protection Plan. Adopt the attached Environmental Protection Plan as an administrative replacement for the Environmental Technical Specifications.

Reason for Change Adoption of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) in lieu of the Non-radiological Environmental Technical Specifications will provide an up-to-date definition of the station's environmental review and protection responsibilities to the NRC and standardize environmental requirements for the two units.

Justification for Change The EPP reflects delegation of responsibility for aquatic environmental monitoring to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Implementation of the EPP also terminates terrestrial monitoring requirements. A summary assessment report entitled, "An Environmental Monitoring Program 1974-1984 on Diamondback Terrapin Nesting and Osprey Nesting/Bald Eagle Occurrence in the Vicinity of Artificial Island," is attached as supporting documentation.

This report concludes that Salem has had no adverse environmental impact on either the diamond terrapin or the osprey/bald eagles.

The monitoring program has continued to be conducted to the present time. The data collected in the years subsequent to this report, support the reported conclusions. Section 3.1.2.1 of the Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications requires that this monitoring continue for 5 years after Unit 2 becomes operational.

Unit 2 became operational in 1981.

Adoption of an EPP for Salem has been strongly encouraged by the NRC and will be administratively controlled by the licensee in the same manner as .other non-technical specification plans and programs.

Significant Hazards Consideration PSE&G has evaluated the hazards consideration involved with the proposed amendment, focusing on the three standards set forth in 10CFR50.92(c) as quoted below:

"The Commission may make a final determination, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under paragraph 50.21(b) or paragraph 50.22 or for a testing facility involves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of th~ facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety."

The following evaluation is provided for the significant hazards consideration standards.

1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. This change merely replaces the present Environmental Technical Specifications with the Environmental Protection Plan and is administrative in nature.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

The proposed changes do not make any physical changes to the plant or changes in parameters governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

As discussed above, the proposed changes are administrative and do not degrade the existing margin of safety. Therefore, changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Conclusion Based on the above safety evaluation, PSE&G concludes that the activities associated with this license amendment request satisfy the significant hazards consideration standards of 10CFR50.92(c).

Accordingly, a no significant hazard consideration finding is justified.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18093B370&oldid=2410162"