ML20141H317
| ML20141H317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141H314 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601130541 | |
| Download: ML20141H317 (2) | |
Text
n
[(pn nur u
g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
<j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~s.,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-70 AND AMENDMENT NO. 44 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC 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 Section 10 CFR 50.36 of the Commission's regulations requires that the technical specifications be consistent with the safety analysis. The licensee discovered an inconsistency between the technical specifications and the FSAR safety analysis in the assumption made for the number of reactor coolant pumps in operation while at hot standby. The number of reactor coolant pumps in operation is important in the event of a control of a control withdrawal accident since increased flow acts to reduce the enthalpy rise in the core and increase the DNBR before reactor trip.
EVALUATIONS AND
SUMMARY
The licensee proposed that the number of reactor coolant pumps required to be in operation when the control rods are energized be increased from 1 to 4.
Only one reactor coolant pump is required to be in operation when the control rods are not energized since a control rod withdrawal accident could not occur. The prososed change provides for additional conservatism and is acceptable to t1e staff.
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 Consnission 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.??(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment no; be,..pa.uJ in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
8601130541 851230 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
m s
2-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: December 30, 1985 Principal Contributor:
W. Jensen e
4 k