ML18092A399
| ML18092A399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1984 |
| From: | Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092A400 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-84-07, LCR-84-7, NUDOCS 8411210234 | |
| Download: ML18092A399 (4) | |
Text
-.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department Ref:
LCR-84-07 October 15, 1984 Director of Nuclear Reactoi Regulation
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operations Reactors Branch 1 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR A.MENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 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 and our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating License DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.
This amendment request consists of a revision to Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 3.4.10, updating RCS pressure/temperature limits.
The changes are in response to the results of reactor vessel material irradiation specimen examination.
In accordance with the fee requirements of 10CRF170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.
95-2168 (SOM) 11-82
Mr. Steven 10/15/84 This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.
Enclosure C
Mr. Donald c. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville Senior Resident Inspector Sincerely, E. A. Liden Manager -
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation Mr. Frank Cosolito, Acting Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Honorable Charles M. Oberly, III Attorney General of the State of Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Ref: LCR-84-07 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
)
ss:
COUNTY OF SALEM COUNTY OF SALEM
)
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 find the matters set forth in our Request for Amendment dated October 15, 1984, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this JU.,
dayof ~
, 1984 Notary Public of New Jersey
!}ONW\\ G. H!TCHNER NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission expires orMyCommissionExpiresMarch24.1987
Ref:
LCR 84-07 PROPOSED CHANGE EXPLANATION DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Replace present Heatup Limits Curve, Figure 3.4-2, with attached
. Heatup Limits Curve.
Replace present Cooldown Limits Curve, Figure 3.4-3, with.
attached Cooldown Limits Curve
- Replace present neutron fluence vs. Full Power Service L1fe, Figure B 3/~~4-1,* with attached re~lacement curve.
REASON FOR CHANGE.
The ~rialysis of the reacto~ vessel material coritained in surveillance.capsule T, the first capsule to be* removed for Salem Unit 2, showed that the transition t~mperature for the.
plate and the weld* materi~l shifted more than predicted.
Since*.
the shifts were greater than predicted* and the intermediate and.*
lower shell vertical weld seam chemistries were estimated,* the -.
-revis~d limits curve is based on the upper *limits of the Regulatory Guide 1.99 prediction curve.
The test results and Westinghouse recommendations are summarized*
in WCAP 10492 "Analysis of Capsule T, Salem Unit 2 Reactor vessel" dated March 1984.
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION The.attached heatup and cooldown limits curves will result in the lower stresses to the Reactor Vessel* during heat ups* arid cooldowns.
The new curves are based on the upper limit of the Regulatory Guide 1. 99 prediction. curve for transition temperature shift~.
Since the new curves will result in more conservative operation of the reactor vessel, there is no increase in the probability or consequences of any accidents nor are any new accidents introduced.
Margins of safety are increased by the more conservative operation.
Since this change introduces curves which are a more stringent limit on operation, it conforms to example (ii) of
" *** Amendments That Are Not Likely To Involve Significant Hazards Considerations" as provided by the Commission in *Federal*
Register 14870.