ML19031B944
| ML19031B944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1978 |
| From: | Fryling R Public Service Electric & Gas Co |
| To: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML19031B944 (2) | |
Text
. @PS~G *
~ -
-:-* ~"' -:..r7
~.. -
-n
'"'* ~
.. -:-.~ J
- IE :~ fAto.a:w no cm rtlE co Pt~
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430-6468 Richard Fryling, Jr. Assistant General Solicitor July 31, 1978 Re:
Request for 10CFR21 Exemption No. 1 and 2 Units Salem Nuclear Generating Station Dockets 50-272 and 50-311 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Division of Operating Reactors Office of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.
20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
Pursuant to 10CFR21.7, Public Service Electric and Gas Company requests an exemption from the requirements of 10CFR21 for the purchase of controllers, transmitters, control switches and control stations from Mo.ore Products Company, Spring House, Pennsylvania.
These "off-the-shelf" items are used in the service water control system of salem Units 1 and 2.
Moore Products Company advised us that they are not in a position to comply with 10CFR21 at this time. It is, therefore, not possible for them to ship us the parts which are ready and which are needed for modifications to the Unit 1 service water system.
These items are integral to the design of the service water control system and have been qualified for our intended use in Salem Units 1 and 2.
They are not duplicated by other suppliers.
Failure to obtain these items would necessitate redesign and requali-fication of the service water control systems.
782160045 The Energy People
--*~
Mr. V. Stello, Jr.
Page Two July 31, 1978 PSE&G will evaluate any deviations found in Moore Products Company items and will report promptly to the NRC if it should be determined that a defect exists.
We believe that this approach, which constitues substantial compliance with 10CFR21 and with Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is in the public interest.
In addition, the granting of the exemption will neither increase the probability or conse-quences of accidents previously considered nor decrease safety margins and, thus, does not involve a significant hazards consid-eration. -Furthermore, the granting of the exemption will not result in any significant environmental impact.
A prompt favorable response would be greatly appreciated since we do not wish to delay test and startup of Unit 2 and we wish to avoid any possible impact upon the operation of Unit 1.
CC Office of the Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555