ML18094A736
| ML18094A736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1989 |
| From: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18094A737 | List: |
| References | |
| NLR-N89051, NUDOCS 8910060281 | |
| Download: ML18094A736 (5) | |
Text
..
(
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer September 13, 1989 NLR-N89051 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 G~ntlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACIL,ITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 & 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, 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 (SGS), Unit Nos. 1 & 2.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.90(b) (1), a copy of this request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.
The attached proposed change requests clarification of the Unit 1 Technical Specification steam generator surveillance requirements to make then identical to the Unit 2 specifications.
The proposed change makes no significant changes to the inspection requirements and also achieves consistency with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
These changes were previously included in License Change Request (LCR) 86-01 Revision 1 (PSE&G
- letter NLR-N86110, dated August 29, 1986).
LCR 86-01 is being withdrawn via PSE&G letter NLR-N89033 and resubmitted as two separate LCRs (89-03 and this request) based on a request by the NRC Licensing Project Manager.
This division and resubmittal will facilitate the review process.
The proposed changes are considered to be administrative in nature in that the proposed change is being requested to obtain similarity between units and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
Since the proposed change is administrative, a significant amount of specialized technical review effort should not be required.
Therefore, PSE&G believes that the proposed change can be classified as a category 2 change.
Document Control Desk NLR-N89051 2 -
09-13-89 contains further discussion and justification for the proposed revisions. is a markup of the existing Technical Specifications to reflect the specifications as requested. is a retype of the Technical Specifications incorporating the proposed changes.
This submittal includes one (1) signed original, including affidavit, and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CFR50.4(b) (2) (ii).
Should you have any questions on the subject transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Attachment c
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Ms. K. Halvey Gibson Senior Resident Inspector -
Salem Mr. w. T. Russell, 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
STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF SALEM
)
SS.
)
REF:
NLR-N89051 Steven E. Miltenberger, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am Vice President* and Chief Nuclear Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated September 13, 1989, concerning the Salem Generating station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Su~scribed and Sworn ~
this /3 fj__
day of
~
.. *~7Jf.Oaw 1989
,*Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission EIL!EM 111: OClfS NOTARY PUIUC DF NEW IERSEY.*
lly Colnllllilll Elplrll July 1'8, 1992.
expires on
. \\
LCR 88-09 Page 5 PROPOSED LICENSE CHANGE SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Description of Change Revise Salem Unit 1 Technical Specifications Sections 4.4.5.2 through 4.4.5.5 provided in the attached pages.
The proposed changes revise Salem Unit 1 Steam Generator surveillances to be consistent with Unit 2 surveillances and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
A change is requested to Unit 2 Section 4.4.6.5.b to clarify that the inservice inspection report shall be submitted in the Annual Operating Report.
Reason and Justification for Change The proposed changes are requested to make Unit 1 surveillance requirements the same as those for Unit 2 and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications, Rev. 4.
The Unit 2 and Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC and represent the current requirements for steam generator surveillance.s Updating the Unit 1 requirements will ensure continuity between Unit 1 and 2 requirements and reduce the potential for error by eliminating the possibility of using the wrong surveillance procedure since the two units will be identical.
Making the two units identical also eliminates the administrative burden of maintaining and training on two separate procedures.
The new requirements do not significantly reduce surveillances and do not represent a risk to the health and safety of the public since they were previously reviewed and approved.
The change to the Unit 2 Section 4.4.6.5.b clarifies reporting requirements to avoid confusion in the method for submitting the annual report.
Significant Hazards Consideration PSE&G has evaluated the hazards considerations involved with the proposed amendment, focusing on the three standards set forth in 10CFR50.92(c) as quoted below:
"The Commission may make a'finai determination, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under paragraph 50.21(b) or paragraph 50.22 or for a testing facility involves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
LCR 88-09 Page 6 (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety."
The following evaluation is provided for the significant hazards consideration standards.
- 1.
Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes are being requested to achieve consistency between the Salem units and to agree with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications which have been previously reviewed and approved by the staff.
The proposed changes clarify the Unit 1 requirements for steam generator tube inspections and make them consistent with current requirements.
The changes do not significantly reduce the frequency or thoroughness of inspections.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2.
Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The changes clarify steam generator inspection requirements.
Steam generator accidents have been previously reviewed and evaluated.
Clarifying the inspection requirements does not make a physical change to the plant and therefore will not create a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
- 3.
Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Since the proposed changes clarify existing requirements, do not significantly reduce any surveillance requirements, do not make physical changes to the pl~nt, and are consistent with previously reviewed and approved standard Technical Specifications and Unit 2 Technical Specifications, the proposed changes do not significantly reduce the margin of safety as defined in the Bases of the Technical Specifications.
Conclusion Based on the above considerations, PSE&G has concluded that the proposed changes satisfy the criteria for a no significant hazards consideration.