ML093580140

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Draft Request for Additional Information
ML093580140
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 12/23/2009
From: Richard Ennis
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Chernoff H
Plant Licensing Branch 1
Ennis R, NRR/DORL, 415-1420
References
TAC ME2229, TAC ME2230
Download: ML093580140 (3)


Text

December 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager /ra/

Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NOS. ME2229 AND ME2230)

The attached draft request for information (RAI) was transmitted on December 23, 2009, to Mr. Jeff Keenan of PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate an upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensee=s amendment request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated September 14, 2009. The proposed amendment would correct editorial items in the Technical Specifications and the Facility Operating Licenses.

This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensees request.

Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Attachment:

Draft RAI

December 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager /ra/

Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NOS. ME2229 AND ME2230)

The attached draft request for information (RAI) was transmitted on December 23, 2009, to Mr. Jeff Keenan of PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate an upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensee=s amendment request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated September 14, 2009. The proposed amendment would correct editorial items in the Technical Specifications and the Facility Operating Licenses.

This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensee's request.

Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Attachment:

Draft RAI DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC LPL1-2 Reading RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 Resource RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrPMSalem Resource LGibson, NRR/DORL ACCESSION NO.: ML093580140 OFFICE LPL1-2/PM NAME REnnis DATE 12/23/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT CORRECT EDITORIAL ITEMS IN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND FACILTY OPERATING LICENSES SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 By letter dated September 14, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092680244), PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) submitted an amendment request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would correct editorial items in the Technical Specifications and the Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information the licensee provided that supports the proposed amendment and would like to discuss the following issue to clarify the submittal.

1) In Item 15, of Attachment 1 of the application dated September 14, 2009, the licensee requested the removal of Unit 2 FOL Condition 2.C.13, entitled River Traffic Accidents (Section 2.2.1, Supplement 1) which states:

PSE&G shall also report for the Salem facility any information reported for the Hope Creek facility relating to circumstances which suggest that the risk from flammable gas clouds (resulting from river traffic accidents on the Delaware River) varies significantly from that previously considered.

It is not clear that this condition is historical. Please provide additional justification for stating that it is historical and can be removed.

Attachment