ML17139C824
| ML17139C824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139C823 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501230052 | |
| Download: ML17139C824 (4) | |
Text
~ jl t
~gR <<fop
~4 0
I OO UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'+0 qO
+0*<<"
SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDMENT NO. 28 an 5
-14 and NPF-22 SUSgU N
R.,
N UNTI 2 Introduction The licensee has proposed an amendment to license condition 2.C.(23)(b) and 2.C.(8){b) to the operating license for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
The present license conditions require the licensee to seismically qualify the In-Vessel Rack {F22-E006) prior to commencement of the first refueling outage.
Evaluation In a letter dated September 19, 1984 the licensee requested that these above license condttions for Units 1 and 2 be amended to require seismic qualifi-cation of the In-Vessel Rack prior to use of the rack.
Current planning for the first refueling outage of each unit is to off-load appropriate portions of the core placing them in the spent fuel pool, followed by replacement of the corresponding fuel assemblies back to the core directly from the spent fuel pool, thereby eliminating the need for the in-vessel rack during the first refueling outage.
Consequently, there will be no need to qualify the In-Vessel Rack prior to the refueling outage.
The capacity of the spent fuel pool can accommodate 10 refuelings (1 refueling
=
1/3 core) plus an entire core.
Conclusion The NRC staff finds the licensee's proposal acceptable, the proposed License Condition for both 2:.C.(23)(b)
SSES-I and 2.C.(8){b) SSES-2 respectively, is:
"Prior to use, PP8L shall complete qualification and documentation as well as installation for the in-vessel rack."
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure..
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on 850i230052 850i i5 PDR
- DOCK 05000387 PDR
0 I
L~
1 i4 1
such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
1 6 1985
0
~
I
~
'E 4