ML20129E171
| ML20129E171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E147 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506060371 | |
| Download: ML20129E171 (2) | |
Text
.
annroy
~%
UNITED STATES
[
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO.
34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-76 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELPGlRVA 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 On February 8,1985, Public Service Electric and Gas Company submitted an amendment request that provided four additional modifications to the i
Technical Specifications previously issued as part of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) in Amendment Nos. 59 and 28 for Salem Units 1 and 2, respectively.
These modifications provide more reasonable and accurate control of radioactive effluents during the plants' operation.
Evaluation and Summary The staff has reviewed the items in the submittal for technical adequacy and found that the modifications meet the intent of the NRC staff's model for RETS for pressurized water reactors, NUREG-0472, Revision 2, February 1,'1980. The changes do not remove or relax any existing requirement related to the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered.
The changes do not remove or relax any existing requirement needed to provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the plants' operation.
L On the basis of our review we conclude that the changes as stated are acceptable and should be included in the Technical Specifications for Salem Units 1 and 2.
l l
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 l
CFR 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve no i
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 D
D 5 00 2
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.
l Dated:
May 28, 1985 Principal Contributors:
. W. Phinke F. Congel C. Willis 4
.~
~