LR-N04-0077, Revision 1 to 180-Day Response to Generic Letter 2003-01, Control Room Habitability
| ML040690654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/2004 |
| From: | Garchow D Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-03-001, LR-N04-0077 | |
| Download: ML040690654 (5) | |
Text
PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 iN0440077 07PSEG NuclearLLC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 REVISION I TO 180-DAY RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 2003-01 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY SALEM UNIT NOS. I AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 On December 9, 2003, PSEG Nuclear LLC submitted the 180-Day response to Generic Letter (GL) 2003-01, "Control Room Habitability." In our 180-day response we made the following statement in the response to item 1(a) for Salem Units 1 & 2: "A license change request to convert the dose analysis to AST is currently planned to be submitted by the end of February 2004." Please be advised that the Alternate Source Term (AST) submittal for Salem Units 1 and 2 has been delayed. We now expect to make the AST submittal by the end of April 2004.
Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Courtney Smyth at 856-339-5298.
Sincerely, archow resident - Engineering and Technical Support A Ol&
95-2168 REV. 7/99
MAR 01 2004 Document Control Desk 2 LR-N03-0077 C Mr. H. J. Miller, Administrator - Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. R. Fretz, Licensing Project Manager - Salem Mail Stop 08B2 Washington, DC 20555-0001 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem (X24)
Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
FORM 1 COMMITMENT EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Commitment Tracking Number: 80056801-q l Source Document: G12003-01 180 Day Response (LRN-03-047 1). Date: 2/25/04 Existing Commitment
Description:
In our 180-day response to GL 2003-01 (CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY) we made the following statement in the response to item 1(a) for Salem Units 1 & 2:
"A license change request to convert the dose analysis to AST is currently planned to be submitted by the end of February 2004."
The AST submittal has been delayed for additional justification and we now expect to make the submittal by the end of April 2004.
Revised Commitment
Description:
Please be advised that the Alternate Source Term (AST) submittal for Salem Units 1 and 2 has been delayed. We now expect to make the AST submittal by the end of April 2004.
Summarize Justification for Revising Commitment:
The AST Project has not completed the calculations necessary to make the LCR submittal.
(Attach additional sheets, as necessary)
Refer to Exhibit I for a flow diagram that outlines the commitment evaluation process.
PART I 1.1 Is a codified (IOCFR) commitment revision process applicable and completed (e.g.,
IOCFR50.59 or IOCFR50.54)?
El Yes EXIT PROCESS*. Use the process described in the applicable IOCFR section to make revision.
H No Go to Part 11.
PART 11 2.1 Could the change negatively impact the ability of a system, structure or component (SSC) to perform its safety function or negatively impact the ability of licensee personnel to ensure the SSC is capable of perfgrming its intended safety function?
No Continue with Part 111. Briefly describe rationale:
The existing source term requirements and CROD will continue to apply until the AST submittal is approved.
El Yes Go to Question2.2 2.2 Perform a safety evaluation using the following 10 CFR 50.92 criteria to determine if a significant hazards consideration exists:
Does the revised commitment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
El Yes El No Basis:
(Attach additional information, as necessary.)
FORM 1 COMMITMENT EVALUATION FORM Does the revised commitment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
E Yes LINo Basis:
Does the revised commitment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Cl Yes DNo Basis:
If any of the above questions are answered Yes, STOP. Do not proceed with the revision, OR discuss change with NRC and obtain any necessary approvals prior to implementation of the proposed change.
If all three questions are answered No, go to Part Ill.
(Attach additional sheets as necessary.)
PART I1 3.1 Was the original commitment (e.g., response to NOV, etc.) to restore an OBLIGATION (i.e., rule, regulation, order, or license condition)?
a Yes Go to Question 3.2.
X No Go to Part IV.
3.2 Is the proposed revised commitment date necessary and justified?
Yes Briefly describe rationale (attach additional sheets as necessary) and notify NRC of revised commitment date prior to the original commitment date.
LI No STOP. Do not proceed with the revision, OR apply for appropriate regulatory relief.
PART IV 4.1 Was the original commitment: (1) explicitly credited as the basis for a safety decision in an NRC SER, (2) made in response to an NRC Bulletin or Generic Letter, or (3) made in response to a request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(0 or 10 CFR 2.204?
> Yes Go to Question 4.2.
E] No Go to Part V.
FORM I
COMMITMENT EVALUATION FORM 4.2 Hlas the original commitment been implemented?
a Yes STOP. You have completed this evaluation. Revise the commitment and notify NRC of revised commitment in summary report.
t No Go to Question 5.1.
PART V 5.1 Was the original commitment made to minimize recurrence of a condition adverse to quality (e.g., a long-term corrective action stated in an LER)?
, Yes Go to Question 5.2.
E] No STOP. You have completed this evaluation. Revise the commitment. No NRC notification required.
5.2 Is the revised commitment necessary to minimize recurrence of the condition adverse to quality?
Yes Revise the commitment and notify NRC of revised commitment in next annual/RFO interval summary report.
El No Revise commitment; no NRC notification is required.
REFERENCES List documents (e.g., procedures, NRC submittals, etc.) affected by this change.
Description Document Number GL Zvoos, _ o LRWo3 - 0471 Prepared by: 5
- APPROVALS Signature Implementing Organization Department Manager Date Signature Commitment Signatory Date Signature Sponsor OrganizationMA anager Date Signature NuclearLicensing Date
Text
PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 iN0440077 07PSEG NuclearLLC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 REVISION I TO 180-DAY RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 2003-01 CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY SALEM UNIT NOS. I AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 On December 9, 2003, PSEG Nuclear LLC submitted the 180-Day response to Generic Letter (GL) 2003-01, "Control Room Habitability." In our 180-day response we made the following statement in the response to item 1(a) for Salem Units 1 & 2: "A license change request to convert the dose analysis to AST is currently planned to be submitted by the end of February 2004." Please be advised that the Alternate Source Term (AST) submittal for Salem Units 1 and 2 has been delayed. We now expect to make the AST submittal by the end of April 2004.
Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Courtney Smyth at 856-339-5298.
Sincerely, archow resident - Engineering and Technical Support A Ol&
95-2168 REV. 7/99
MAR 01 2004 Document Control Desk 2 LR-N03-0077 C Mr. H. J. Miller, Administrator - Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. R. Fretz, Licensing Project Manager - Salem Mail Stop 08B2 Washington, DC 20555-0001 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem (X24)
Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
FORM 1 COMMITMENT EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Commitment Tracking Number: 80056801-q l Source Document: G12003-01 180 Day Response (LRN-03-047 1). Date: 2/25/04 Existing Commitment
Description:
In our 180-day response to GL 2003-01 (CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY) we made the following statement in the response to item 1(a) for Salem Units 1 & 2:
"A license change request to convert the dose analysis to AST is currently planned to be submitted by the end of February 2004."
The AST submittal has been delayed for additional justification and we now expect to make the submittal by the end of April 2004.
Revised Commitment
Description:
Please be advised that the Alternate Source Term (AST) submittal for Salem Units 1 and 2 has been delayed. We now expect to make the AST submittal by the end of April 2004.
Summarize Justification for Revising Commitment:
The AST Project has not completed the calculations necessary to make the LCR submittal.
(Attach additional sheets, as necessary)
Refer to Exhibit I for a flow diagram that outlines the commitment evaluation process.
PART I 1.1 Is a codified (IOCFR) commitment revision process applicable and completed (e.g.,
IOCFR50.59 or IOCFR50.54)?
El Yes EXIT PROCESS*. Use the process described in the applicable IOCFR section to make revision.
H No Go to Part 11.
PART 11 2.1 Could the change negatively impact the ability of a system, structure or component (SSC) to perform its safety function or negatively impact the ability of licensee personnel to ensure the SSC is capable of perfgrming its intended safety function?
No Continue with Part 111. Briefly describe rationale:
The existing source term requirements and CROD will continue to apply until the AST submittal is approved.
El Yes Go to Question2.2 2.2 Perform a safety evaluation using the following 10 CFR 50.92 criteria to determine if a significant hazards consideration exists:
Does the revised commitment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
El Yes El No Basis:
(Attach additional information, as necessary.)
FORM 1 COMMITMENT EVALUATION FORM Does the revised commitment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
E Yes LINo Basis:
Does the revised commitment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Cl Yes DNo Basis:
If any of the above questions are answered Yes, STOP. Do not proceed with the revision, OR discuss change with NRC and obtain any necessary approvals prior to implementation of the proposed change.
If all three questions are answered No, go to Part Ill.
(Attach additional sheets as necessary.)
PART I1 3.1 Was the original commitment (e.g., response to NOV, etc.) to restore an OBLIGATION (i.e., rule, regulation, order, or license condition)?
a Yes Go to Question 3.2.
X No Go to Part IV.
3.2 Is the proposed revised commitment date necessary and justified?
Yes Briefly describe rationale (attach additional sheets as necessary) and notify NRC of revised commitment date prior to the original commitment date.
LI No STOP. Do not proceed with the revision, OR apply for appropriate regulatory relief.
PART IV 4.1 Was the original commitment: (1) explicitly credited as the basis for a safety decision in an NRC SER, (2) made in response to an NRC Bulletin or Generic Letter, or (3) made in response to a request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(0 or 10 CFR 2.204?
> Yes Go to Question 4.2.
E] No Go to Part V.
FORM I
COMMITMENT EVALUATION FORM 4.2 Hlas the original commitment been implemented?
a Yes STOP. You have completed this evaluation. Revise the commitment and notify NRC of revised commitment in summary report.
t No Go to Question 5.1.
PART V 5.1 Was the original commitment made to minimize recurrence of a condition adverse to quality (e.g., a long-term corrective action stated in an LER)?
, Yes Go to Question 5.2.
E] No STOP. You have completed this evaluation. Revise the commitment. No NRC notification required.
5.2 Is the revised commitment necessary to minimize recurrence of the condition adverse to quality?
Yes Revise the commitment and notify NRC of revised commitment in next annual/RFO interval summary report.
El No Revise commitment; no NRC notification is required.
REFERENCES List documents (e.g., procedures, NRC submittals, etc.) affected by this change.
Description Document Number GL Zvoos, _ o LRWo3 - 0471 Prepared by: 5
- APPROVALS Signature Implementing Organization Department Manager Date Signature Commitment Signatory Date Signature Sponsor OrganizationMA anager Date Signature NuclearLicensing Date