ML18089A343

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Application for Amend to License DPR-75,supplementing 821007 Application to Revise Tech Spec 4.7.9a Clarifying Requirements for Scheduling Initial & Second Visual Insp
ML18089A343
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 09/09/1983
From: Liden E
Public Service Enterprise Group
To: Varga S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18089A344 List:
References
LCR-82-17, NUDOCS 8309140068
Download: ML18089A343 (2)


Text

..

  • OPS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department September 9, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attention:

Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 1 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-75 NO. 2 UNIT SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-311 Ref:

LCR 82-17 Public Service Electric and Gas Company's (PSE&G's) letter dated October 7, 1982 forwarded an amendment application that included four separate proposed changes to the Salem Generat-ing Station Technical Specifications; three for Unit No. 2, one for Unit No. 1.

One of the proposed changes, LCR 82-17, addressed the visual inspection requiremenfs-for-hydraulic and----- - ---

mechanical snubbers at Salem Unit No. 2.

Attached is supple-mental information to LCR 82-17.

Specifically, PSE&G in LCR 82-17 requested Specification 4.7.9a be revised to clarify the requirements for scheduling of the initial and second visual inspections.

The initial inspection had been done under one criteria (4-6 months after initial criticality); however, Amendment 5 to the license was subsequently issued revising the initial inspection criteria (4-10 months after power operation).

Since the second inspec-tion schedule was based on when the initial inspection was performed, this created confusion on scheduling the second visual inspection.

The second visual inspection has now been conducted; thus, the need for the change as proposed in our October 1982 application is moot.

As discussed with Mr.

Fischer of your staff, PSE&G now proposes to delete the spe-cific requirements for the initial and second and incorporate S30914*006B 930909 PDR ADOCK 05000311 p

PDR The Energy People

\\

~'<:?/

I \\

95-2168 (SOM) 11-82

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9/9/83 only the current visual inspection requirements.

This change will make the Unit No. 2 snubber visual inspection requirements consistent with those of Unit No. 1 without changing the current inspection requirements of the existing specification.

Attachment Sincerely,

~-~~~~-3?

E. A. Liden Manager -

Nuclear Licensing and Regulation CC:

Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Donald c. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville Senior Resident Inspector