ML20094Q677
| ML20094Q677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094Q675 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204090428 | |
| Download: ML20094Q677 (3) | |
Text
- -. - -
- s. mn
! [',,.. c ' ';
h UNIT ED $ TAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f{
i WA5mNGTON. D C 20556 l
% b b#
SAFFTY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOP PfGULATION RELATED TO AMENPPENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPEFATING LICENSE NC. NPF-57 PUBLIC FERVICF ELECTRIC & GAS COPPANY ATLANTIC CITY FLECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEr GENERATitlG fTATION DOCKET _NO. 50-354 1.0 INTPODUCTION By letter dated October 17, 1991, the Public Service Electric & Cas Company and Atlantic City Electric Company (the licensees) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). Technical Specifications (TS). The reouested changes would revise the Explosive Gas Mixture and the Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Ponitoring instrumentation section in the TS.
Specifically, TS 3.11.P.6, ACTION b would be revised to agree with the corresponding FCTION b of TS 3.3.7.11 and ACTION 124 of Table 3.3.7.11-1, 2.0 EVALVATION The TS for Facility Operating License No. Npf-57 (FOL) for the HCGS were issued in July 1986. The Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) were included as part of the Hope Creek TS and were implemented by the licensee upon issuance of the TS. By letter dated September 12, 1986, and supplemented by letters dated September 22, 1906, and November 10, 1986, the licensees requested changes to the RETS incorporated in the TS. The changes were requested to modify TS 3.3.7.9 and TS 3.3.7.10 to be consistent with Revision 2 to the Standard RETS. The changes were approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (the Staff) in Amendment P to the FOL. Subsequently, Amendment 10 to the FOL renumbered TS 3.3.7.9 and TS 3.3.7.10 as 3.3.7.10 and 3.3.7.11, respectively. The content of TS 3.3.7.10 and TS 3.3.7.11 (formerly, TS 3.3.7.9 and TS 3.3.7.10) was not changed by Amendment 10 to the FOL.
The licensees inadvertently omitted TS 3.11.2.6 when they submitted the license amendment request that led to Amendment 2 to the FOL. Therefore, there are currently two HCGS TS that delineate actions required in the event that the main condenser offgas treatment system hydrogen monitors are declared inot..able. The two TS for hydrogen n;onitors differ slightly in their ACTION statement wording. TS 3.11.2.6, ACTION b states:
"With continuous monitors inoperable, operation of the main condenser offgas treatment system may centinue for up to 30 days provided grab samples are collected at least once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and analyzed within the following 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />." As written, this TS would reouire the licensees to secure discharging through the main condenser offgas treatment system af ter 30 days even if they are performing grab samples every four hours. This is contrary to the steffs' guidance delineated in NUREG-0473 (Revision 2). TS 3.3.7.11 ACTION b, in conjunction with ACTION 124 of TS TABLE 3.3.7.11-1, also del meates actions to be taken for inoperable 9204090420 920401 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
~
I 2
nain condenser offgas treatment system hydrogen monitors. if 3.3.7.11, ACTION b in ccr' junction with ACTI0f! 124 of TS Table 3.3.7.11-1, contains the same grab sample rcquirement as does TS 3.11.2.6, ACT100 bt however, it does not restrict the discharge to 30 days.
Instead of the 30-day restriction. TS 3.3.7.11 states in part:
" Exert best efforts to return the instruments to OPERACLE status within 30 days and, if urtuccessful, explain in the next Seniannual Radicettive Effluent Releese Peport pursuant to Spccification 6.9.1.7 why this inorcrability was not corrected in a timely manner."
This wording in TS 3.3.7.11 was mod *fied by Amendnent 2 to the FOL based on the guidance in NUREC-0473 (Revision 2).
The license amerement requested on October 17, 1991, would make the ACTION statement for TS 3.11.2.6, ACTION b agree v'th the applicable ACTICU statements of TS 3.3.7.11.
This change ud11 eliminate conflicting requirements for the hydrogen monitoring instrumentation.
The licensees' proposed TS amendment is consistent with the intent of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS), namely, that alternative radioactive effluent monitoring techniques are used to assess the effluents should the primary means nut be available.- The HCGS TS include the hydrogen monitoring instrumentation as part d
of the Radioactive Effluent monitor ng instrumentation.
Based on the staff's review of the licensees' October 17, 1991, submittal ard HCGS FOL Amendments 2 and 10, the staff first that the licensees' preposed TS amendraent request corrects an unintenticr,a1 omission of TS 3.11.2.6 ACTICh b when Ar'endment 2 to the FOL was dssued and meets the intent of HUREG-0473 (Revisions 2 and 3).
Therefore, the licenices' proposal is acceptable.
3.0 STATF CONSL'LTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State officiel was notified of the proposed issuance of the arendment.
The State official had no comments,
- t. 0 FNVIR0fmENTAL CONS 1rEPATIOP The amendment changes a requirement with respect to 'nsta11ation or use of a fec*lity component locatcd within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFP Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the emendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released of fsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or curulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously 'ssued a proposed finding that the amendment = involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public ccmment on such find're (56 FR 5'702). Accordingly, the amendment meet s the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFP 01.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be preparrd in connection with the 'ssuance of the amendment.
l l
l lL,. -
l 3
5.0 C0!!CLUSION Thc Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasoreble assurance that the toalth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliarre with the Connission's reguletions, and (3) the issuance of the amerdment will not be inimical to the conecn defense and security or to the heoith and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S. Dembek Date: -April 1, 1992 ii..