ML20108B307
| ML20108B307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20108B305 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503060830 | |
| Download: ML20108B307 (2) | |
Text
$'
~%
UNITED S ATES
['
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
rj W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55,
k+....,/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 30 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NO. ?
DOCKET N0. 50-311 Introduction By letter dated October 15, 1984 Public Service Electric and Gas Company requested a revision to Technical Specifications Section 3.2.2 for the Salem Generating Station Unit No. 2.
The revision consists of a change to Figure 3.2.2, "K(z) Normalized F (z) as a Function of Core Height".
n The revision to the current K(z) curve is necessary to eliminate the potential violation of the third line segment of the K(z) curve during Cycle 3 operation of Unit 2.
Cycle 3 will be the first 18 months cycle for Unit 2.
From preliminary analysis, Unit No. 2 Cycle 3 F (z) values g
will be similar to those of Unit No. 1 Cycle 6 which is also an 18 month cycle. The proposed Technical Specification change is already in effect for Unit No. 1.
Evaluation and Sumary The change to the K(z) curve is allowable because a new small break LOCA NRC reviewed and approved analysis was done for Units 1 and 2 in 1979.
The this K(z) curve change for Unit I as part of the Cycle 2 Reload.
change wa; never made to the Unit 2 Technical Specifications since it was We have reviewed the results of the small break analysis and not needed.
agree with the previous approval. We have also verified the Westinghouse results for the third line segment of the K(z) curve which is the requested Technical Specification change and agree that it is correct.
Based on our review we agree with the licensee that the change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration and approve this requested change to Technical Specification Fiqure 3.2.2.
8503060030 850222 PDR ADOCK 05000311 P
-. 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 coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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:
l (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, l
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 comon defense and security or to the health and i
safety of the public.
Dated: February 22, 1985 Principal Contributor:
l M. Chatterton l