ML20070V552
| ML20070V552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070V551 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302170401 | |
| Download: ML20070V552 (2) | |
Text
k k
SAFE 1Y EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION By letter, dated November 17, 1982, the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) requested a change to the Technical Specifications to provide for an independent review of the security plan and its implementing procedures at least once per 12 months.
EVALUATION A letter dated October 30, 1982, was sent from D. G. Eisenhut of the NRC staff, to all licensees and applicants for operating power reactors and holders of construc-tion permits for power reactors.
This letter stated that Section 73.40(d) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each nuclear power reactor licensee provide for an independent review of its safeguards contingency program at least every 12 months. The letter requested a review of the Technical Specifications to assure that they were consistent with the requirements of Section 73.40(d).
On November 17, 1982, the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company responded in a letter from O. W. Dixon, Jr., to H. R. Denton.
This letter proposed a modification t
to the current Technical Specifications to comply with the provisions of Section -
73.40(d).
We have reviewed the requested change and concluded that it is acceptable since it complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.40(d).
EHVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent typ/
or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signif-icant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further con-cluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the stand-point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an enviroe-mental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
omcq sunnau: 8302170401 830203
...... - ~... - -..
PDR ADOCK 05000395 san _,P ppg
-- ---~~~--
~. - -. ~ ~ ~....
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usoi.mi_m.=
iP 2
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1)because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident. of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: February 3, 1983 Principal Contributor: Jon Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL CFFICE)
............u..........
....a
..a......~aa
- a. " ~ ~ a a ~ ~
- a a.
aa*a~~~""a.""
[URNAME)
...............a.ua..
- a. a..a a*.aaaa "a***""""**"*"**
DATE)
....................a..
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usano: m i-sas.=
NRC FORM 318 OW NRCM 0ao
. _ _. _ _