ML18096A186

Revised Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75, Consisting of LCR 88-06,changing Existing Provisions in Tech Specs 3.0 & 4.0 by Incorporating Changes Endorsed by Generic Ltr 87-09

ML18096A186
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	07/30/1991
From:	Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML18096A187	List: ML18096A186 ML18096A189
References
GL-87-09, GL-87-9, NLR-N91126, NUDOCS 9108080041
Download: ML18096A186 (5)

Text

'..

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Ser'fice Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President - Nuclear Operations

. , 1KJL I.,

3 1l 1981 NLR-N91126 United States Nuclear Regulatory Com.mission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REVISED LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION REVISION TO LCR 88-06 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 This letter constitutes a revision to the license amendment application submitted for the Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 on February 20, 1991 (LCR 88-06). The subject license amendment proposed changes to address a number of problems related to the existing provisions contained in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Technical Specifications by incorporating the changes endorsed by Generic Letter 87-09.

• The proposed revisions to LCR 88-06 are discussed'iri Attachment 1. The revisions do not affect the significant hazards analysis or conclusions contained in the original license amendment application. Attachment 2 includes marked-up Technical Specification pages reflecting the revisions discussed in Attachment*1. The revised pages included in Attachment 2 are intended to replace the corresponding pages contained in the original LCR submitted on February 20, 1991.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b) (1), a copy of this request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

Should you have any questions or comments on this transmittal, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, Affidavit Attachments (2)

~\ 1,

Document Control Desk 2 JUL 3*o 1991 NLR-N91126 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

REF: NLR-N91126 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM Stanley LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President - Nuclear Operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I.find the matters set forth in our letter dated JUL '3 0 1001 , concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of My Commission expires on ELIZABETH J. KIDD Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires April 25, 1995

ATmClIMENl' 1 REVISION 'IO IC.R REVISED LICENSE ~ APPLICATION REVISION 'IO IC.R 88-06 E\CILI.TY OPERATING LICENSE NOO. DIR-70 AND DIR-75 SAllM GENERATING 8'12\TIQN UNI'IS 1 AND 2 IXlCKEl' NOO. 50-272 AND 50-311 NIR:-N91126 I. Description of Revision I.CR 88-06 is being revised to accomplish the following:

1. '!he revisions would delete the 3.0.4 exemption for Unit 1 Technical Specification 3. 8. 3 .1. '!he 3. o. 4 exemption for the equivalent Unit 2 Specification was deleted in the original I.CR.

Unit 1 Specification 3. 8. 3 .1 was added by License Amendment 105 issued December 4, 1989. Since Amendment 105 was not required to be implemented until before startup from the ninth refueling outage, the Amendment was not implemented until April 1991. As a result, Unit 1 Specification 3.8.3.1 was not yet included in the Technical Specifications when ICR 88-06 was submitted on February 20, 1991 and an oversight was made in not including a change to this Specification in ICR 88-06.

2. '!he revision would correct a mnnber of editorial and typographical errors contained in*the original ICR which create inconsistencies between the Generic Letter 87-09 guidance and the submitted changes. '!he corrections include:

a. Changmg the *iof" to "for1i .in the sixth line of the Bases for Specification 3. O. 3 on Insert Page 3 of 8.

b. Deleting the inappropriate "not" in the third line from the bottom of Insert 3 of 8.

c. Underlining the phrase "Specifications 4.0.1 through 4.0.5 11 in the first line of Insert Page 5 of 8.

d. Including the word "necessary" in the sixth line in Insert 5 of 8.

e. Changing the "purposed" to "purpose" in the third line of the Bases for Specification 4.0.4 on Insert Page 7 of 8.

f. Adding cormnas after the 11 2 11 in the second and third lines of the Bases for Specification 4.0.5 on Insert Page 7 of 8.

Page 1 of 2

Attachment 1 NLR-N91126 Revision to LCR II. Reason for Revision

'!he proposed revisions are being submitted to correct the oversight of not submitting a change to Unit 1 Specification 3.8.3.1 in the original I.CR and to correct editorial/typographical errors included in the original I.CR.

III. Justification for the Revision Deleting the 3.0.4 exemption for Unit 1 Specification 3.8.3.1 is identical to the change submitted for Unit 2 in the original I.CR. '!he 3.0.4 exemption is no longer necesscn:y due to the changes proposed to Specification 3.0.4.

Removal of the exemption is in accordance with the Generic letter 87-09 guidance.

'!he editorial changes are intended to correct editorial/typographical errors and make the proposed changes consistent with the Generic letter 87-09 guidance.

IV. Significant Hazards Consideration Evaluation Impact In NIR-N90121 dated February 20, 1991, PSE&G concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not involve a significant hazards consideration since the changes (i) do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (ii) do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and (iii) do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 'Ihese conclusions and the basis for making them is unaffected by this revision; the significant hazards analysis submitted in NIR-N90121 remains valid.

Page 2 of 2