ML20092K381
| ML20092K381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092K378 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509250372 | |
| Download: ML20092K381 (2) | |
Text
..
p# 42ug#
4 g*
-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666 4001
'+9*****
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 80 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
By letter dated January 20, 1995 the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for a change to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 4.1.3.1.2.b, " Control Rods - Surveillance Requirement" would change the required action to be taken when a control rod becomes immovable due to excessive friction from "at least once per" 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to "within" 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
2.0 DISCUSSION On September 27, 1993, the NRC staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation." With regard to the Technical Specifications (TS), GL 93-05 states that, "...while the majority of the testing at power is important, safety can be improved, equipment degradation decreased, and an unnecessary burden on personnel resources eliminated by reducing the amount of testing that the TS require during power operation."
One such example, addressed in Section 4.2.2 of GL 93-05, addresses the surveillance to be undertaken if a control rod becomes immovable.
The recommendation in Section 4.2.2 states, "The TS should be changed to require that if a control rod is immovable because of friction or mechanical interference, the other control rods should be tested within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and every 7 days thereafter."
3.0 EVALUATION HCGS TS 4.1.3.1.2.b. currently requires that, "At least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, when a control rod becomes immovable as a result of excessive friction or mechanical interference" then the other control rods should be demonstrated to be operable. The licensee has proposed replacing "At least once per" 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with "Within" 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed change to TS 4.1.3.1.2.b. and concludes that it is in accordance with the recommendations of GL 93-05 and is, therefore, acceptable.
9509250372 950920 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
1 s
4.
- t. i
4.0 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 coments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a surveillance requirement.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, j
and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released i
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 i
consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 39452). 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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
{
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 4
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 4
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. H. Jaffe Date: September 20, 1995
.