ML20059C220
| ML20059C220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401050029 | |
| Download: ML20059C220 (3) | |
Text
.
l 1
aRECu
/ '
UNITED STATES
!"h.)W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
S RE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20656-0001 o
f 4
,, f l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. o TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-5<
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354
.a
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated April 1,1993, as supplemented July 2,1993, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes g
to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), Technical Specifications (TSs).
This amendment request would revise the TSs surveillance requirements to extend the surveillance test intervals (STIs) and allowed out-of-service times (A0Ts) for the emergency core cooling system. (ECCS) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system actuation instrumentation.
The July 2, 1993 letter forwarded a non-proprietary version (the original letter forwarded the' proprietary version) of General Electric Company report RE-018 (Revision 1),
"TS Improvement Analysis for ECCS Actuation Instrumentation for Hope Creek Generating Station," and did not change the initial proposed no significant-hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed changes to TS Sections 3/4.3.3 (ECCS) and 3/4.3.5 (RCIC) and their associated bases. The proposed changes are based on the NRC staff's previous approvals of the following GE licensing topical. reports i
(LTRs):
1.
NEDC-30936P-A, "BWR Owner's Group Technical Specification Improvement l
Methodology (With Demonstration for BWR ECCS Actuation Instrumentation) 1 Part 1,"-dated December-1988..This LTR was approved by letter and i
safety evaluation dated December 9,1988, from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to D.
N. Grace (BWR Owners Group).
2.
NEDC-30936P-A, "BWR Owner's Group Technical Specification Improvement.
Methodology (With Demonstration for BWR ECCS Actuation Instrumentation) 1 Part 2," dated December 1988. This LTR was approved by letter and:
safety evaluation dated December 9, 1988, from C. E. Rossi (NRC) to-D. N. Grace (BWR Owners Group).
t 3.
GENE-770-06-2, " Addendum to Bases for Changes to Surveillance Test Intervals and Allowed Out-of-Service Times for Selected Instrumentation i
i I
9401050029 931227
^
l PDR ADDCK 05000354
.P PDR I
, u.
l
t 2
Technical Specifications," dated February 1991. This LTR was approved by letter and safety evaluation dated September 13, 1991, from C. E.
Rossi (NRC) to G. J. Beck (BWR Owners Group).
Each of the above LTRs was prepared and approved on a generic basis by the staff as noted above. The staff's safety evaluations required that two conditions be satisfied to justify the applicability of the generic analysis to individual plants. These conditions were:
- 1) confirmation of the applicability of the generic analyses to the specific plant, and 2) confirmation that any increase in instrument drift due to the extended STIs is properly accounted for in the setpoint calculation methodology. The licensee's responses to these conditions are evaluated -in the following discussion.
In order to discuss plant-specific differences.etween the GE LTRs and HCGS, the licensee referenced GE Report RE-018, Revision 1.
This report extended the generic analyses developed in the LTRs to the HCGS.and discussed the plant-specific differences in accordance with the NRC safety evaluations of the LTRs.
Based on its own analysis and the results of the GE plant-specific analysis, the licensee stated that the proposed changes are consistent with the changes proposed and approved in the referenced GE LTRs and associated NRC safety evaluations with one exception. The licensee stated that the proposed wording relative to the maintenance A0Ts in NEDC-30936P-A, Parts 1 and 2, imply an allowance of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before taking the action of TS 3.3.3-1.
To clarify this TS, the licensee used the wording in a letter (GE Document No.
0G90-319-320) from W. P. Sullivan (GE) to NRC, " Clarification of Technical Specification Changes Given in ECCS Actuation Instrumentation Analysis," dated March 22, 1990. The staff reviewed this exception and agrees that it acceptably clarifies the TS wording. Therefore, based on the licensee's statements and the staff's review of the licensee's submittal (including the plant-specific analysis contained in GE Report RE-018, Revision 1), the staff agrees that the generic analyses apply to the HCGS.
In order to evaluate the acceptability of instrument drift, the licensee utilized a two-fold approach. The first approach determined that the existing setpoint drift calculations were based on an 18-month-interval; therefore, the proposed STI extensions from monthly to quarterly are well bounded by the existing setpoint calculations. The second approach used actual plant data to confirm the vendor's drift expectations. The licensee's data showed that over a 12-month period, the observed drift was found to be conservatively bounded by the total loop allowance for a six-month period. This verifies that a quarterly Sll schedule is acceptable.
Based on the staff's review of the licensee's analysis, the staff agrees that instrument drift due to the extended STIs is properly accounted for in the setpoint calculation methodology.
The licensee has satisfied the two conditions that the staff imposed on licensees that request these TS amendments. Therefore, the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
4
o t
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use-of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined r
that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no o
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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 25864). Accordingly, the 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
i The Commission 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, (2) such 1
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
j Principal Contributor:
S. Dembek l
Date: December 27, 1993 1
l i
I i
1