ML18086B492
| ML18086B492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1982 |
| From: | Uderitz R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B493 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-82-08, LCR-82-8, NUDOCS 8205210383 | |
| Download: ML18086B492 (4) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Richard A. Uderitz 80 Park Plaza, Newark, NJ 07101 201-430-7380 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 Vice President Nuclear May 17, 1982 Ref. LCR 82-08 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Steven Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors G.entlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING.LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendment o~ the Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 1, and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.
This request consists of the modification of a surveillance re-quirement in the Safety Technical Specifications (Appendix A).
Since these changes involve a single safety issue, and are deemed not to involve a significant hazards consideration, they are determined to be a 'Class I and Class III as defined by 10CFR170.22.
A ch~dk for $4,400 is enclosed.
This submittal includes three (.31 signed originals and forty (40)
Very truly yours, 4zcc£~f II oO I ff;;,
\\N~'~C;h:
copies.
Enclosures II y 'lo D. oo
Ref: LCR-82-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.60-272 AND 50-311 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 NOS. 1 AND 2 UNITS SALEM GENERATING STATION Public Service Electric and Gas ComJ?any hereby submit? proposed change to Facility Ope~ating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
This change request relates to the section of the Technical Specifications pertaining to Emergency Core Cooling Systems.
Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY C-'
By: ~~~
VlCE ~:R,ESlDENT
Ref. LCR 82-08 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS:
COUNTY OF ESSEX RICHARD A. UDERITZ, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:.
I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I signed the request for change to FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS.
D~R-70 AND DPR-75.
The matters set forth in s~id change regu~st are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
RICHARD A. UDERlTZ Subscribed and sworn to before me
!<f i::A day of m._crf.
i9s2.
tL//!l/U._;.(j !:::.
- h/ *a.:,u_:Ut:J ~d__)
this Notary :E:>ublic of-New Jersey My Commission expires on * -(2(!;;6-.* l * /yf..-3
- LCR 82-08 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Technical Specifications Section 4.5.2.d.l should be deleted and rewritten as Section 4.5.2.i as described below:
The automatic isolation and interlock function of the RHR System shall be verified within the seven t7l days prior to placing the RHR System in service for cooling of the Reactor Coolant System.
This shall be done by verifying that valves
- RHl and RH2 close upon insertion of a test signal corresponding to a reactor coolant pressure of 580 psig or less, and that, with a test signal corresponding to a reactor coolant pressure of 580 psig or greater, that the valves cannot be opened.
Technical Specifications Section 4.5.2.d.2 should be renumbered as Section 4.5.2.d.l REASON FOR CHANGE This change will provide improved testing methods at operational
/conditions that provide more meaningful verification of the automatic isolation and interlock functions for RHl and RH2.
SAFETY EVALUATION The change will provide increased assurance that th~.isolation and interlock functions associated with valves RHl and RH2 will be operable during the modes of operation when RHR isolation could be required.
Since this change improves an existing testing technique, and does not introduce new conditions which could affect existing safety analyses, an unreviewed safety question is not involved.