ML18095A736
| ML18095A736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1991 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18095A737 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-90-20, NLR-N90239, NUDOCS 9102110201 | |
| Download: ML18095A736 (5) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President - Nuclear Operations
.l.
FEB O 4 199t NLR-N90239 LCR 90-20 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating.station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
In accordance with 10CFR50.91 (b) (1) requirements, a copy of this request has been sent to the state of New Jersey.
The proposed amendment corrects various administrative errors in the Technical Specifications.
These changes are being made to correct typographical errors, provide clarity and correct references to other Technical Specifications. includes a description, reason, justification and significant hazards analysis for the proposed changes. contains the Technical Specification pages revised with pen and ink changes.
We request that the implementation date be established at 60 days following issuance of the approved License Amendment.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.
Attachments 9102110201 910?04 PDR ADOCK 65056272 p
PDR Sincerely,
~~
- foof tlL,r i
Document Control Desk NLR-N90239 c
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector 2
Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief FEB O 4 1991 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
NLR-N90239 LCR 90-20 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 I.
Description of Changes Revise the Technical Specifications listed below to correct typographical errors or achieve consistency.
- 1.
Technical Specifica:tion 3.1. 3. 4 (Unit 2 only)
Change the words "fully withdrawn" to all capitals
- "FULLY WITHDRAWN" in the following specifications:
3.1.3.4, Action a, and surveillance 4.1.3.4.
- 2.
Technical Specification 3.2.5, DNB Parameters, Table 3.2-1, (Unit 2 only)
Revise Pressurizer Pressure DNB Limit to read:
" ~ 2200 psia*."
- 3.
Technical Specification 3.10.2 Special Test Exceptions, Group Height, Insertion and Power Distribution Limits Revise Surveillance Requirement 4.10.2.2 to reference the correct requirements of specification 4.2.3 Nuclear Enthalpy Hot Channel Factor.
Reword the specification
. to eliminate redundancy and provide clarity.
II.
Reason and Justification for the Changes
- 1.
This is a Unit 2 only change.
The proposed change will retype the words "fully withdrawn" as "FULLY WITHDRAWN".
Words that are typed in all capitals are defined in Section 1.0.
This change will indicate that "FULLY WITHDRAWN" is defined in Section 1.0 and thus eliminate any possible misinterpretation.
- 2.
This change is a Unit 2 only change.
The proposed change will correct a typographical error for Table 3.2-1.
The DNB parameter for pressurizer pressure is maintained at greater than or equal to 2220 psia, not less than 2220 psia as indicated.
- 3.
Surveillance 4.10.2.2 will be changed to provide more specific cross references to the required surveillances.
The specification will be reworded to eliminate redundancy and provide clarity.
III. Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 10CFR50.92, PSE&G has reviewed the proposed changes and concluded the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration because the changes would not:
- 1.
Involve a significant increase in the_probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
- 1.
The proposed change to all capitals for the words "FULLY WITHDRAWN" is administrative only.
There are no technical changes.
Therefore, this change would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 2.
The proposed change to correct a typographical error for Table 3.2-1, Pressurizer Pressure DNB parameter is administrative only.
There is no technical change.
Therefore, this change would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 3.
The proposed changes to surveillance requirement 4.10.2.2 will provide more specific cross references to the required surveillances.
The proposed rewording of the Unit 1 specification will eliminate redundancy and improve consistency with Unit 2.
These changes are administrative and not technical in nature.
Therefore, this change would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
As demonstrated above, all of the proposed are administrative and would not create the possibility for a new or different type o.f accident.
- 3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
As demonstrated above, all of the proposed are administrative and do not change Technical Specifications in a way that would reduce any margin of safety.
IV.
Conclusions Based on the information presented above, PSE&G has concluded there is no significant hazards consideration.
ATTACHMENT 2