ML20084G098
| ML20084G098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084G083 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506020433 | |
| Download: ML20084G098 (2) | |
Text
s
- png kl UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001 k..... f
/
)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 73 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354
1.0 INTRODUCTION
s By letter dated August 30, 1994, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station, Technical Specification (TSs). The requested changes will relocate TS 3.3.7.9, Loose Parts Detection System (LPDS), Surveillance Requirement 4.3.7.9, and associated Bases from the TSs to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The TSs index will also be revised by removing the reference to LPDS. Removal of the LPDS requirements from the TSs is consistent with the NRC Final Policy Statement on TS Improvements (58 FR 39132). As a result of the proposed changes, subsequent revisions to the LPDS requirements can be processed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 as opposed to 10 CFR 50.90.
2.0 EVALUATION The Commission's regulatory requirements related to the content of the TSs are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. That regulation requires that the TS include items in five specific categories, including (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls. However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS.
The LPDS identifies the existence of possible loose parts in the reactor coolant system.
Early detection can provide operators time to take corrective actions and avoid or mitigate damage to or malfunctions of primary components.
However, as discussed in the Final Policy Statement on TS improvements, the LPDS does not function to detect significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the LPDS does not serve as an active design feature for establishing initial conditions for mitigation of design basis accidents or transients. The licensee has proposed to relocate these provisions to the UFSAR such that future changes to the operation and surveillance of the LPDS could be changed under 10 CFR 50.59.
9506020433 950525 ADOCK0500g4 DR
s
> Accordingly, the staff has concluded that the requirements for the LPDS do not meet the TS criteria in the Final Policy Statement on TS improvements. The limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the LPDS were removed from the standard technical specifications.
In conclusion, this specific instrumentation requirement is not required to be in the TSs under 10 CFR 50.36 or Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and is not required to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety.
Further, LPDS does not fall within any of the four criteria set forth in the Commission's Final Policy Statement discussed above.
In addition, the staff finds that sufficient regulatory controls exist under 10 CFR 50.59 to address future changes to these requirements. Accordingly, the staff has concluded that these requirements may be relocated from the TSs to the s
licensee's UFSAR.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l 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 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 16197). 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 LONCLUSION 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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, j
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Moran Date:
May 25, 1995
- -