ML20209C258
| ML20209C258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C245 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704280632 | |
| Download: ML20209C258 (2) | |
Text
-
merg'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
o
'f
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066
\\..../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 77 AND 51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM N'UCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 6,1986, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey (the licensee for the Salem Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) proposed changing Technical Specifications 4.9.6.1, 3.9.7, and 4.9.7-to derate the manipulator crane and the fuel handling area crane such that loads of no more than 2200 lbs. (the weight of one fuel assembly and its handling tool) are carried over the spent fuel elements. The licensee committed to derate these cranes during the staff's evaluation of the heavy load handling systems to meet the guidance of NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants." The licensees connitment is documented in their letter dated April 27, 1983.
. Technical Specifications 3.9.7 and 4.9.7 would be revised to reflect the derating of the cranes from 2500 lbs. to 2200 lbs.' Technical Specification 4.9.6.1 would.be revised to clarify that the 2850-1b... load cut-off. for. the...
manipulator crane includes the weight of. the load plus the weight of the crane mast and gripper..
EVALUATION AND SUPMARY Since the allowable load for the manipulator crane and the fuel handling area crane, when traveling over the fuel assemblies, is being reduced and no new fuel handling procedures are being introduced, the derating of the cranes does not increase the safety hazards or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to Technical Specifi-cations 4.9.6.1, 3.9.7 and 4.9.7 are acceptable.
8704280632 870331 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
PDR l
l
r
- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
These amendments involve 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 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 published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comument on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22fc)(9).
4 Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Dated: March 31, 1987 Principal Contributor:
R. Goel l
1 I
I I
I 2
4 f
i i