ML20128H170
| ML20128H170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128H158 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507090439 | |
| Download: ML20128H170 (2) | |
Text
_-
/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
n E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELEGIRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELEGIRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Introduction On December 7, 1984, Public Service Electric and Gas Company submitted an amendment request that added a surveillance requirement for Salem Units 1 and 2 that would verify that the Containment Pressure-Vacuum Relief Isolation valves are limited to less than or equal to 60* opening angle.
This action completes staff review of information presented by Public Service Electric and Gas Company demonstrating operability of these valves in the event of an accident. The amendment request also removed a footnote from the Unit 2' Technical Specification that is no longer applicable.
Evaluation and Suninary By letter dated October 30, 1984 the staff informed Public Service Electric and Gas that they had completed their review of the information submitted concerning operability of containment purge and vent valves for Salem Units 1 and 2.
The staff found the infonnation submitted had satisfactorily demonstrated the ability of the 10-inch Pressure / Vacuum Relief valves to close against the buildup of the containment pressure in the event of DBA/LOCA. The analysis, in part, was based on a valve opening angle limited to 60. The additional surveillance requirement verifies this limit. Since the additional surveillance requirement provides the assurance that the valves will operate under the worst conditions, the staff finds the requested change acceptable.
The second change, removal of a footnote in the Salem Unit 2 Technical Specifications, is also acceptable since the footnote is no longer applicable.
Environn. ental 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,
$ 70goM h h 72 p
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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 25, 1985
+.
Principal Contributor:
D. Fischer