ML20086B909
| ML20086B909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086B908 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9111210129 | |
| Download: ML20086B909 (2) | |
Text
_
- (* *%q'e, UNITED ST ATES l',dn[t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$c i
WA5mG10N. O C. 20555 k ' 4.-
e!
SAFETY EV,ALU,ATJON BY THE, Offj,CE,,0[, f(U,CM,A,R RE, ACTOR, REGUL ATJ0!i RELATED TO AMEtJDMENT NO.44 TO FACILITY CPERATJf:G LICENSE NO. NPF-57 P U B L 1 C_,5 E R,VJ.C E.,E L E,C,T RJ C,,&, G A S,,C,0pfpj(Y A_T,LbM,1,C,,C),T,Y, J,L, ECTR 1C COMPANY HOPE CREEf,GEf(Ef AT,1NC,,5,TA,TJ,0tj DOCKET NO. 50-354 1.0 liiTRODUCTION By letter of September 6,1991, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic City Electric Company (tre licensees) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested change modifies the requirements for test of electrical protective assctblies (EPAs) performing a channel functional that are currently specified with a C-month surveillance interval. Guidance on this proposed change was provided to all boiling-water reactor (BWR) licensees by Generic Letter 91-09, of June 27, 1991, 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed to modify the 6-month surveillance intervals for performing channel functional tests of EPAs as specified in Technical Specifications (TS) 4.8.4.4.a and 4.8.4.6.a to state that they are to be performed "each time the plant is in COLD SHUT 00Wil for a period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, unless performed in the previous 6 months." Hope Creek differs from the typical plant in that the Power Range Neutron Monitoring System (PRNMS) is not pcwered fror, the Reactor Protection System (RPS) power supplies; instead, the PRI:MS is equipped with separate power supplies and separate EPAs.
The EPAs used for the PRNMS are identical to the EPAs used for the RPS.
Like the RPS EPAs, the PRl1MS EPAs place the plant in a half scram condition while being tested. Therefore, this change is consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 91-09.
The tiiagara Mohawk Power Corporation provided an analysis in a proposal submitted on December 15, 1988, that calculated the safety risks and benefits of a similar TS change.
The U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed and concurred with the conclusions of this analysis that this TS change will produce a net safety benefit.
Because the EPAs for all Ek'Rs are primarily the same, the staff finds that this ana h sis applies generically to all.BWRs.
In addition, it is the staff's qua' tive judgment that the proposed increase in the surveillance interval is not safety significant because of the diverse protection that exists, the number of failures that l
have to occur to have an adverse impact on safety, and the potential for l
detecting a degraded condition of the RPS and PRNMS through on-line testing.
Therefore, the staff finds that the licensee's proposed TS change is acceptable.
1 9111210129 9111or, PDR ADOCK 05000354 t
P pyg l
t
. ~.
2 3.0 ST ATE C0!15ULTAT10f4 in accordance with the Cornission's regulations, the flew Jersey State official was notified of the propos(d issuance of the acende,ent. The State official had no cor: rents.
4.0 E t!V I R0f;f4E l4T AL_ C0ti,SJ D,E R ATJ 0p The amendment changes a surveillance requirenent.
The t;FC staff h6s detern,ined that the arnendirent involves no significant increase in the arnounts, and r,o significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or curnulative occupational radiation exposure. The Cornission has previously issued a proposed finding that the anendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public content on such finding (56 FR 49925). Accordingly, the arendo.ent meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Si 22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental in: pact statorent or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendnent.
5.0 C01:CLUS10ti The Cornission 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 raanner, (2) such activities will be conducted in corpliance with the Conmission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the crendnent will tct be inimical to the conson defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Thomas G. Dunning Stephen certet Date:
November 5. 1991
_--.______-----_____.-_-_-_-----__n