ML20195D134
| ML20195D134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195D132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811040200 | |
| Download: ML20195D134 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
W A SHING TON. D. C. 20555
\\,..../
SAFETY EVAlllATION BY THE OFFICE OF NtfCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO 20 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF.57 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC A GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELFCTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50454 1.0 INTR 00ttCT!0N By letter dated March 7.1988. Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSEAG) requested an amendment to Facility Operating Licen.' No. NPF-57 for the Hope Creek Generatina Station. The proposed amendunt would delete license condition 2.C.(3'.
License condition 2.C.(3) granted relief from certain pump and vaive testing requirements of 10 CFR 50.5Eafg) as requested in the Hope Cred. I6scrvice Testing (IST) Program.
Revision fl. dated July 12, 198',until April 11. 1988 or until a detailed review of this Revision 0157 Program was completed, which ever came first.
By letter dated September 21, 1987, prior to completion of the staff's review of the Revision O. Hope Creek IST Program. PSEAG sut'mitted Revision 1 to this IST Procram. The Revision 1 IST Program superseded the Revision 0 IST Program in its entirety. The Pevision 0 IST Program incorporated the requirements of the 1980 Edition of ASME Code Section XI through the 1981 Winter Addenda. The Revision 1 IST Program incorporated the requirements of the 1983 Edition of ASME Code Section XI through Suimer 1983 Addanda.
It deleted some of the Revision 0 Program relief requests and added some new relitf tequests.
It also deleted some components that were included in the Revision 0 Program and incorporated some additional components not previously identified with the program.
The staff and its consultant. EGAG. Idaho, perfomed a preliminary review of the Revision 1 Program, with emphasis on requests for relief from the Code requirements. The purpose of the preliminary review was to provide an assessment of the acceptability of Revision 1 to the Hope Creek IST Program for the period of time until the staff's review of the Revision 1 IST Program is completed.
Rased on this preliminary review, the staff concluded that PSEAG should follow the Revision 1 Hope Creek IST program to establish purp and valve operability. By letters to the licensee dated L'ecember 7. 1987 and February 23. 1988, the staff grar.ted interim relief for all except 5 of ss11040200 381026 t
ADOCK0500]"4 DR
s 2
the Revision 1 IST Progran relief requests until the staff review of the Revision 1 IST Program is completed.
2.0 EVALUATION Since the Pevision 0 IST Program dated July 12, 1985 was acceptably superseded in its entirety by the Revision 1 IST Pregram dated Septerber 21, 1987, license Condition 2.C.(3) which refers the Revision 0 IST Program is no longer appropriate. On this basis, we conclude that the proposed deletion of license condition 2.C.(3) is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component locateo within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requi rems...ts. The 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 20045) on June 1, 1988 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) them is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the l
Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
l l
Principal Contributor:
G. Rivenbark 1
Dated:
October 26, 1983 1
l
.