ML18095A860
| ML18095A860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1991 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18095A861 | List: |
| References | |
| NLR-N91032, NUDOCS 9104110006 | |
| Download: ML18095A860 (4) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge,* NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations APR o 3 1991 NLR-N91032 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
LICENSE CHANGE REQUEST 90-20 DNB PARAMETER AND SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
./
In letter (ref: NLR-N90239), dated February 4, 1991, Publio Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted License Change Request 90-20 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75.
The proposed amendment consisted of several administrative changes to three Technical Specifications.
These changes are described in Attachment 1 to the referenced letter.
Further review has determined that Item #1, the change to Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 (Unit 2 only) is not required.
PSE&G withdraws its request to change this Technical Specification.
PSE&G requests that the changes to Item #2, Technical Specification 3.2.5 (Unit 2 only) and Item #3, Technical Specification 3.10.2 be process as requested. includes a description, reason, justification, and significant hazards analysis for the proposed changes. contains the Technical Specification pages revised with pen and ink changes.
{
- 1104-110006 91040
- =:
-~
PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
Document Control Desk NLR-N91032
) 2 Should there be any questions with regard to this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Attachments c
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager*
Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 APR o 3 1991 NLR-N91032 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 I.
Description of Changes LCR 90-20 Revise the Technical Specifications listed below to correct typographical errors or achieve consistency.
- 1.
Withdrawn
- 2.
Technical Specification 3.2.5, DNB Parameters, Table 3.2-1, (Unit 2 only)
Revise Pressurizer Pressure DNB Limit to read:
~ 2220 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.
Withdrawn
- 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.
- 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.
Page 1 of 2
NLR-N91032 III. Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 10CFRS0.92, PSE&G.has reviewed the proposed changes and concluded the proposed changes do not involve a significant* hazards consideration, because the changes would not:
A.
Involve a significant.increase in the possibility or consequences of an accident*previously analyzed.
- 1.
Withdrawn
- 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 specification will eliminate redundancy and improve consistency.
These changes are administrative and not technical in nature.
Therefore, these changes would not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
B.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
As demonstrated above, all of the proposed changes are administrative and would not create the possibility for a new or different type of accident.
- c.
As demonstrated above, all of the proposed changes 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 that there is no significant hazards consideration.
Page 2 of 2