ML20034A037
| ML20034A037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004190211 | |
| Download: ML20034A037 (2) | |
Text
.
. ' f * "*%[*.,
T,
\\
[%.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sq e
5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$$6 k.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.37 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 i
P_UBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY I
ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
t-By letter dated January 31, 1990, Public Service Electric & Gas Company j
requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 for the Hope Creek Generating Station. The proposed amendment would revise the 4
Technical Specifications by removing the 3.25 limit on extending surveillance intervals.
2.0 EVALUATION I
The requested change was proposed by Commonwealth Edison Company for the LaSalle Plant and approved by the NRC staff on a lead-plant basis.
Guidance for other licensee amendment requests has been provided in Generic Letter 89-14 As stated in the Generic Letter, experience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provision of-Technical-Specification 4.0.2 to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accournodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle.
- However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to i
safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to p
perform these surveillances. Therefore, the 3.25 limitation;on extending surveillance intervals has not been a practical limit on.the use of the i
l 25 percent allowance for refueling outage surveillance interval extensions.
The NRC staff has concluded that the removal of the 3.25 limit from Specification 4.0.2 results in a greater benefit to safety than limiting the use of the 25% allowance to extend surveillance intervals. This safety benefit can be demonstrated by extending the interval of a surveillance that, if performed rigidly to-its schedule, would require j
its performance under conditions that are not suitable for performing the i
surveillance. Examples of this include conditions present during plant t
operating transients or times when safety systems are out of service 1
[-
because of ongoing surveillance testing or maintenance activities.
In such cases, the safety benefit of allowing a 25-percent extension of the surveillance interval would outweigh any benefit derived by limiting three i
l' consecutive surveillance intervals to the 3.25 limit. Additionally, the PDR P
i i
\\
2-4 1
requested change would provide relief of the administrative burdens 4
}
associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent a11owance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit. Based upon the above, the NRC staff has b
concluded that the proposed change is consistent with the guidance in i
GL-89-14 and removal of the 3.25 limit will have an overall positive impact on safety. Thus, these changes;are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance require-ments. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there.is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental
.,j assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment' involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 6116) on February 21, 1990 and consulted with the State of New Jerse FR 9789) y.
A Correction Notice was published on March 15,1990,(55 correcting the application dete.
No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that-(1) there is reasonable' assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
i i~
Principal Contributor:
C. Shiraki Dated: April 3, 1990
+
F e
v e
., - -