ML20080F250
| ML20080F250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080F247 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402100406 | |
| Download: ML20080F250 (2) | |
Text
__________-___-_____ - ____
. s n ;,,\\
UNITED STATES
[}
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
,t 2
"iASWNGTON. O C. 20C53
( A - d L((
~'....."
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-75 FUSLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELT4ARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET N0. 50-311 Introduction On October 7,1982, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted an amendment change request which addressed the visual inspection requirements for hydraulic and mechanical snubbers at Salem Unit No. 2.
Specifically PSE&G requested that the existing Technical Specifications regarding the schedular requirements for the first ano subsequent visual inspections of snubbers be revised for clarification puposes.
- However, since Salem Unit No. 2 has already completed the first and second inspections, the requested schedular changes regarding these inspections became moot.
On September 9, 1983, PSE&G submitted a revised amendment change request that deleted the requirements in the Technical Specifications with respect to the first inspection; however, retained in the Technical Specifications, the schedule pertaining to performance of all subsequent visual inspections of snubbers.
The Technical Specification surveillance requirements for Unit 2 would then be identical to the snubber surveillance requirements for Salem Unit No.1 as given in the Unit 1 Technical Specification.
Evaluation and Summary The change request only deletes from the Technical Specifications, a requirement for performance of the first visual snubber inspection that was completed on Salem Unit No. 2 in 1981, and makes the surveillance requirement consistent and identical to that for Salem Unit No. 1.
Because the change is purely administrative, the staff concludes that the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and therefore, is acceptable.
Evironmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent. types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this 8402100406 840127 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
4 determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental inpact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connectfon 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 cnd safety of the public will not be endargered 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 ccrmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: January 27, 1984 Principal Contributor:
D. Fischer O
e O