ML20116D781
| ML20116D781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116D775 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8504300030 | |
| Download: ML20116D781 (2) | |
Text
_
p urg4 UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO. 32 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 NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 INTRODUCTION By letter dated June 17, 1983 and supplemented by letters September 23, 1984, March 27, 1984, August 31, 1984, and November 6, 1984, the licensee requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Salem Units 1 and 2 would modify the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications to assure compliance with Appendix I of 10 CFR 50 and remove the current Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications from the Appendix "B" Technical Specifications.
Subsequently, Amendment Nos. 59 and 28 were issued by the Comission of December 5,1984 granting the above change request.
The amendments were to become effective on issuance and to be implemented no later than 45 days after issuance.
In a letter dated January 18, 1985, the licensee requesteu.a amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 that would revise the Facility Operating Licenses to provide an additional 60 days for implementation of Amendments 59 and 28.
The change request would provide a more realistic period of time in which to implement Amendments 59 and 28 (for Units 1 and 2, respectively). The presently specified 45 day implementation time did not allow sufficient time to complete the significant technical, administrative and training efforts involved in the change-over of the large number of procedures related to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I requirements.
EVALUATION AND
SUMMARY
The 10 CFR 50, Appendix I rulemaking specifically addressed the definition of a criterion of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" and set effluent limits based on doses to the population surrounding nuclear power plants. Since the existing radiological technical specifications are at least as, or more conservative than the Appendix I specifications contained in Amendment 59 to Facility Operating License DPR-70 and Amendment 28 to Facility Operating License DPR-75, deferral of the implementation of these amendments would pose no hazard to the health and safety of the public during the deferral period.
Further, the staff concluded that the 45 day implementation period kh
[D P
~
- did not allow an adequate amount of time to complete the significant efforts involved in the implementation of Appendix I requirements, and that a longer time period is a reasonable request.
Therefore, the staff concludes that an extension of the implementation period by an additional 60 days is acceptable and, as such, Facility Operating License Nos. 70 and 75 may be amended to allow a total implementation time for Amendments 59 and 28 of 105 days after issuance.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 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 Comission's regulations and the issuarce of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
April 9, 1985 Principal Contributor:
D. Fischer
- -