ML20114B367
| ML20114B367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114B366 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208260232 | |
| Download: ML20114B367 (4) | |
Text
.
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,.g y
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
\\....+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 53 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 February 3,1992, Public Service Electric & Gas Company and Atlantic City Electric Company (the licensees) submitted a request to amend the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specification (TS).
The requested changes would eliminate the scram and main steam line isolatien valve (MSIV) closure requirements associated with the main steam line radiation monitors (MSLRM). This request was submitted as the plant-specif!c portion, which, in conjunction with the General Electric Licensing Topical Report NED0-31400 and the NRC's May 15, 1991 Safety Evaluation (SE) on this topical report, formed the basis for the package to be evaluated.
The February 3, 1992 submittal was supplemented by a June 16, 1992 submittal which responded to the NRC's and the State of New Jersey's questions.
The supplemental letter did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION Specifically, the licensee proposed the following changes:
1.
Remove the " Main Steam Line (MSL) Radiation - High, High" functional unit fror' Table 2.2.1-1 and footnote "#" which corresponds to that item; 2.
Remove the reference to high steam line radiation from Bt.ses Section B2.2.1.5; 3.
Remove the "MSL Radiation - High" item from Bases Section B2.2.1.6; 4.
Remove the "MSL Radiation - High, High" functional unit from Table 3.3.1-1 and ACTION 5 which corresponds to that item; 5.
Remove the "MSL Radiation - High, High" functional unit from Table 3.3.1-2; 6.
Remove the " Main Steam Line Radiation - High, High" functional unit from Table 4.3.1.1-1 and footnotc (i) which corresponds to that item; 9208260232 920817 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
. 7.
Modify the valve actuation groups specified in Table 3.3.2-1 regarding MSL isolation; 8.
Modify the " Valves closed by Signal" column in Table 3.3.2-1, Table Notation,'regarding MSL isolation.
9.
The MSIV response time for " Main Steam Line Radiation - High, High" in Table 3.3.2-3.
2.0 EVALVATION 2.1 Conditions of the Topical Report In the staff's SE, which accepted the referencing of NED0-31400 for the elimination.of the MSIV closure f'.nction and scram function of the MSLRM, it
-was stated that the following thrre conditions had to be met 1.
The applicant needed to demonstrate that the assumption, with regard to the input values, including power per assembly, Chi /Q, and decay times, that were made in the generic analysis, bound those for the plant.
2.
The applicant include sufficient evidence, implemented or proposed oporating procedures or equivalent commitments, to provide reasonable assurance that increase significant levels of radioactivity in the main steam lines will be controlled expeditiously to limit both occupational doses and environmental releases.
3.
The applicant standardize the MSLRM and offgas radiation monitor alarm setpoint to 1.5 times the nominal N-16 background dose rate at the monitor locations and commit-to promptly sample the reactor coolant to determine possible contamination levels in the reactor coolant and the need for. additional corrective action, if the MSLRM or offgas radiation monitors or both exceed their alarm setpoints.
The licensee, in response to Condition 1 above, stated that the assumptions and justifications made in'the generic analysis bound the HCGS.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's assumptions for values such as Chi /Q and power level
- per assembly and has. concluded that the generic analysis assumptions bound those presented-in the HCGS analysis.
- In the response to Condition 2, the licensee's February 3, 1992 submittal indicated.that they have procedures in place which address the actions required in-the event of.a high' radiation signal.in the main steam line.
This submittal also indicated that the licensee would review and upgrade the procedures as appropriate upon NRC approval of their request tn ensure their
. continued applicability and correctness. The State of New Jersey requested additional information regarding this condition. This was provided by the licensee in a letter dated June 16, 1992, which discussed the specific procedures affected and operator training.
The staff has reviewed the
'S e
1.
9 licensee's commitment and has determined it is acceptable and responsive to Condition 2.
In response to Condition 3, the licensee stated that the MSLRM setpoint is 1.5 timss the N-16 background at the monitor location.
This alarm would trigger entry into the abnormal procedure, OP-AB.ZZ-203, which requires a reactor coolant sample be obtained and analyzed.
The Offgas Radiation Monitor alarm is set-to alarm at 50% increase (1.5 times) the nominal steady-state fission gas release from the reactor coolant, after factoring out any increases due to changes in thermal power levoi, or to alarm at 10 mr/hr, whichever is greater.
The-licensee has found this 10 mr/hr. caveat necessary to eliminate numerous spurious alarms (with their attendant distractions of the control room
- operators) due.to current background levels so low (4 to 5 mr/hr) tnat circuit noise or minor changes in offgas flowrate can initiate an alarm.
The purpose of this monitor is to detect fuel failures, it is located approximately halfway down the 10-minute holdup line to augmented offgas treatment to eliminate the masking of the measurement of interest by N-16 levels.
This causes the background levels to be extremely low.
The 10 mr/hr alarm setpoint corresponds to 0.05% of the-limit of 330 millicuries /second specified in TS 3.11.2.7,-and provides conservative indication. As background levels increase with piant age, the 10 mr/hr alarm will eventually be supplanted by the 1.5
. times background alarm setpoint. This caveat is an acceptable deviation from the requirements of Condition 3.
TS Section 4.ll.2.7.2.b requires performing an it.otopic analysis of a representative gas sample taken from near the discharge of the main condenser air ejector when the offgas radiation monitor alarm setpoint is reached and would trigger entry into one or more of the above abnormal procedures, which, in turn, prescribe further additional corrective actions,- including obtaining and analyzing a sample of the reactor coolant as discussed in Condition 3.
The staff is satisfied with the manner in which the licensee addressed Condition 3.
Hope Creek's main steam line drain valves, HV-F016 (Inboard), HV-F019 (Outboard), and HV-F067A thru D, are currently isolated with the MSIVs on receipt of an MSL Radiation High - High signal.
ihese valves provide a two-phase flowpath from the eight MSIV's before-seat drains to the main condenser and are normally open during plant operation. This is essentially the same flow path as the MSIVs.
Since these= valves do not involve any significant difference in fission product pathway from that of the MSIVs, deletion of their isolation is consistent with elimination of the HSIV isolation function for MST. Radiation High - High.
The 2" drain lines run parallel to the 26" MSLs through the steam line tunnel to the turbine building, where the MSLs continue on to the Main Stop Valves and the drains go to the main condensers.
Throughout their. travel, the MSLs.and other steam and drain lines are located in areas, the steam line tunnel and condenser bay areas, that are, due to Nitrogen 16 radiation, locked closed "Hi-Radiation Areas." Therefore, there
- is no appreciable difference in radiological risk to plant personnel over that of normal plant. operating conditions whether the drain lines are open or shut L
on s high radiation condition in the MSLs.
All other isolation actuations I
associated with the MSL Radiation function will remain intact.
l
M 4
_s
. 3.0 STATE CONSULTAT[Q&
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, New Jersey State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment, lhe State, by letter dated April 6, 1992, commented on the licensee's response, as requested by the NRC Safety Evaluation dated May 15, 1991, to provide reasonable assurance that elevated levels of radioactivity in the main steam line will be controlled expeditiously. - The State was concerned that the licensee did not provide enough detail regarding the specific procedures that were in place, including required operator actions, to_show reasonable assurance.
The licensee responded to the State's concern by letter dated June 16, 1992.
-That letter provided supplemental information regarding the specific procedures implemented at Hope Creek Generating Station and the evaluation of operator training done to ensure that any significant increase in the level of radioactivity in the main steam line is promptly controlled to limit environmental releases and on-site (o;cupational) exposures.
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 signif'. ant 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
_(57 FR 11115). 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
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, 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 Contributors:
S. Dembek A. Keller_
Date:
August 17, 1992
___