ML20107H614
| ML20107H614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107H607 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411090164 | |
| Download: ML20107H614 (2) | |
Text
.
.l
\\
1A2 KICVf g
UNITED STATES f.
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y.;.o q
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~('
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 58 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-70 AND AMEN 0 MENT NO. 27 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
~
PHILADELPHIA ELEGIKIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT CUMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELEGIKIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 4
INTRODUCTION On October 5,1982, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) submitted an amendment change request that would change the Technical Specifications for Unit 1 and Unit 2 regarding performance of a Reactor Coolant System water inventory balance, to be identical to provide consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications. The specification will now read: " Performance of a Reactor Coolant System water inventory balance at least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The water inventory balance
-l shall be performed with the plant at steady state conditions. The provisions of specification 4.0.4 are not applicable for entry into Mode
]
4."
o 4
EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
The second sentence of the above referenced specification needed to'be added to the Unit 2 Technical Specification,to make it consistent with the Unit I specification, and the third sentence of the above referenced specification needed to be added to the Unit 1 Technical Specification.
These individual
?
changes serve to implement and complete the intended action reouired of the specification. We conclude that the changes are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the instal.lation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 1
CFR 20.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, j
of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that exposure.
these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment en such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet 8411090164 841017 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
o l
2-the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement 51.22(c)(9).
or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and securi.ty or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 17, 1984 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
D. Fischer e
a I
i
.. -. - _, - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _