ML19031C234: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:***,:l"'S',l Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /622-7000 REGULATQ;DV o.nn.* !(!""..DecTm~er 1, 1976 | {{#Wiki_filter:***, : l"'S',l Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /622-7000 REGULATQ 1;DV o.nn.* !(!""..DecTm~er 1, 1976 n i *v0ht I F1Lt COPY Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: | ||
n i *v0ht I F1Lt COPY | Mr. Karl Kniel, Chief Light Water Reactors - | ||
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Karl Kniel, Chief Light Water Reactors - Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C. | Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C. | ||
APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR SO SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. S0-272 AND S0-311 The information requested in Enclosures 1 and 2 of your October 27, 1976 letter is herewith submitted. | 205SS Gentlemen: | ||
We wish to clarify that it is the intent | APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR SO SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. S0-272 AND S0-311 The information requested in Enclosures 1 and 2 of your {{letter dated|date=October 27, 1976|text=October 27, 1976 letter}} is herewith submitted. | ||
Our June 21, 1976 submittal in response to your February 19, 1976 | Information requested in En-closure 2 (with the exception of Question 11A 11, | ||
. letter provided the required cost-benefit analysis (Item 6 of En-closure 1). Because of the low man-rem exposures calculated, the cost-benefit analysis was simplified and it was not necessary to fill out detailed cost-benefit tables. | Hydrology) has been provided by referencing previous submittals. | ||
These include a) our submittal dated June 21, 1976 in answer to Enclosure 1, Items 1-6 and Enclosure 2, Items 2-9 of your {{letter dated|date=February 19, 1976|text=February 19, 1976 letter}}, and b) our submittal dated October 26, 1976 in answer to Enclosure 2, Item 1 of your {{letter dated|date=February 19, 1976|text=February 19, 1976 letter}}. | |||
We wish to clarify that it is the intent of PSE&G to comply with Section II:D of Appendix I to 10 CFR so. | |||
Our June 21, 1976 submittal in response to your February 19, 1976 | |||
. letter provided the required cost-benefit analysis (Item 6 of En-closure 1). | |||
Because of the low man-rem exposures calculated, the cost-benefit analysis was simplified and it was not necessary to fill out detailed cost-benefit tables. | |||
We are confident that our submittals on Appendix I have demonstrated the compliance of Salem Nuclear Generating Station with the ments of Section II:D of Appendix I to 10 CFR SO. | We are confident that our submittals on Appendix I have demonstrated the compliance of Salem Nuclear Generating Station with the ments of Section II:D of Appendix I to 10 CFR SO. | ||
cc Genl. Mgr. - Elec. Prod. | |||
The Energy People | The Energy People R. L. Mittl General Manager - Projects Engineering and Construction Department 12501 95*2001 30DM 8-75}} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:28, 5 January 2025
| ML19031C234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1976 |
| From: | Mittl R Public Service Electric & Gas Co |
| To: | Kniel K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML19031C234 (1) | |
Text
- , : l"'S',l Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /622-7000 REGULATQ 1;DV o.nn.* !(!""..DecTm~er 1, 1976 n i *v0ht I F1Lt COPY Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Karl Kniel, Chief Light Water Reactors -
Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C.
205SS Gentlemen:
APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR SO SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. S0-272 AND S0-311 The information requested in Enclosures 1 and 2 of your October 27, 1976 letter is herewith submitted.
Information requested in En-closure 2 (with the exception of Question 11A 11,
Hydrology) has been provided by referencing previous submittals.
These include a) our submittal dated June 21, 1976 in answer to Enclosure 1, Items 1-6 and Enclosure 2, Items 2-9 of your February 19, 1976 letter, and b) our submittal dated October 26, 1976 in answer to Enclosure 2, Item 1 of your February 19, 1976 letter.
We wish to clarify that it is the intent of PSE&G to comply with Section II:D of Appendix I to 10 CFR so.
Our June 21, 1976 submittal in response to your February 19, 1976
. letter provided the required cost-benefit analysis (Item 6 of En-closure 1).
Because of the low man-rem exposures calculated, the cost-benefit analysis was simplified and it was not necessary to fill out detailed cost-benefit tables.
We are confident that our submittals on Appendix I have demonstrated the compliance of Salem Nuclear Generating Station with the ments of Section II:D of Appendix I to 10 CFR SO.
cc Genl. Mgr. - Elec. Prod.
The Energy People R. L. Mittl General Manager - Projects Engineering and Construction Department 12501 95*2001 30DM 8-75