ML18095A868
| ML18095A868 | |
| 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 | |
| ML18095A869 | List: |
| References | |
| NLR-N91046, NUDOCS 9104150026 | |
| Download: ML18095A868 (6) | |
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 o3 199~
NLR-N91046 LCR 89-03 Rev. 1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES 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 License DPR-75 for Salem _
Generating Station, Unit No. 2.* In accordance with 10CFR50.91 (b) (1) requirements, a copy of this request has been sent to the State'of New Jersey.
This request supersedes the previously submitted license change request for Salem Unit Nos 1 and 2, dated September 13, 1989 (Ref: PSE&G letter NLR-N89033), and eliminates all changes requested for Salem Unit 1. PSE&G's request was amended by letters dated Jµly 10, 1990, November 6, 1990, and December 27, 1990. This submittal consolidates all requested changes into one .document.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature in that they correct typographical errors and correct errors in specification numbering. Since the proposed changes are administrative and consistent with NRC guidelines, a significant amount of -
specialized technical review effort should not be required.
Attachment 1 includes a description, reason, justification and significant hazards analysis for the proposed change.
Attachment 2 contains the Technical Specification pages revised with pen and ink changes.
~oo\
r----
1 9104150026 910403 f\1~
I PPDR ADOCK 05000272 PDR
Document Control Desk APR. o 3 1991 NLR-N91046 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.
Sincerely, Attachments (2)
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
Attachment 1.
NLR-N91046 LCR 89-03 Rev. 1 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NO. 2 TITLE OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION I. Description of Change Revise Technical Specifications listed below to correct typographical errors and eliminate ambiguity.in specification numbering.
- 1. Change table notation in Technical Specification Table 3.3-6, for Action Statement No. 24 to correct the .number of the referenced specification.
- 2. Revise the numbering for Surveillance Requirements 4.4.7.2 on Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage.
- 3. Change Technical Specification Table 3.4-1 to correct the descriptions of SJ44 valves.
II. Reason for the Change
- 1. Action Statement 24 for an inoperable Radiation Monitoring System channel incorrectly refers to Specification 3.4.6.1, Steam Generators. The reference is being corrected to refer to Specification 3.4.7.1, Reactor Coolant System Leak Detection.
- 2. Currently, there are two surveillances numbered 4.4.7.2. These surveillances are being renumbered to 4.4.7.2.1 and 4.4.7.2.2 for clarity.
- 3. Table 3.4-1 describes the function of the SJ144 valves as Safety Injection (H.P. from SI Pumps to Hot Legs).
These valves are in the lines to the Cold Legs, and should be described as Safety Injection (H.P. from SI Pumps to Cold Legs).
Page 1 of 3
NLR-N91046 III. Justification for the Change
- 1. Correction of the typographical error in Action Statement 24 will assure that the proper actions are taken.
- 2. Renumbering of the specifications is purely an administrative change which allows easier procedural references.
- 3. Changing the improper functional description listed in the table is purely an administrative change in that it ensures the component functional description is correct for the component listed.
IV. 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 probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
- 1. Correction of the typographical error so that the action statement references the correct action assures that proper actions will be taken. This change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 2. Renumbering of a specification is purely an administrative change which allows easier procedural references. As such, the proposed change will not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
- 3. The proposed change corrects an improper component functional description for the component and is therefore an administrative change. As such, the proposed change will not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
Page 2 of 3
NLR-N91046 B. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
As demonstrated above, all of the proposed changes could be considered to be typographical or administrative. As such, these changes have either been previously reviewed or are purely administrative and would not create the possibility for a new or different type of accident.
- c. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
As discussed above, these changes are administrative and do not change Technical Specifications in a way that would reduce the margin of safety.
- v. Conclusions Based on the information presented above, PSE&G has concluded there is no significant hazards consideration.
Page 3 of 3
NLR-N91046 ATTACHMENT 2