ML20199C144

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 108 to License NPF-57

ML20199C144
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/06/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199C129	List: ML20199C127 ML20199C141 ML20199C144
References
NUDOCS 9711190236
Download: ML20199C144 (3)

Text

_.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. . ._ _._.. _ _ .. _ . _ ._. _ ._ _._. _ _ _ . _ .

t 2

gag u t UMTED STATES -

s* _ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006-00M

\ ***** WETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. inn TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-57 _

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK hFERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354

1.0 INTRODUCTION

'By letter dated September 29,1997, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), Technical Specifications (TSs). This amendment changes  !

TS 3/4.11.1, " Liquid Effluent - Concentration." The change adds a requirement  ;

to perform weekly sampling and monthly and quarterly composite analyses of the station service water system (SSWS) when the reactor auxiliaries cooling system (RACS) is contaminated. Also, an editorial change is proposed to TS Table 4.11.1.1.1-1, in Liquid Release Type B, which would change the acronym for Station Service Water System from GSW to SSWS.

2.0 DISCUSSION Section 9.2.1 of the HCGS Updated Final Safety Analysis (UFSAR) describes the i SSWS. Normally, the SSWS circulates water, via two of four SSWS pumps, from the Delaware River (the ultimate heat sink) to the heat exchangers associatea with the safety auxiliary cooling system (SACS). Other non-essential heat loads, including the RACS,'are cooled by the SSWS under normal conditions, j

+

The SSWS water from the SACS and RACS heat exchangers is normally discharged to the station cooling tower via a non-seismic Category I flow path. In the i event that this normal flow path is unavailable, water is discharged directly l to tha plant yard via the seismic Category I emergency overboard (E08) lincs. J l

Under the current requirements of TS 3/411.1, specificall,v, TS Table 4.11.1.1.1-1, " Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling and Analysis Program", should the SACS become contaminated, weekly sampling and monthly and quarteriy composite analyses of the SSWS is required. The requirement is needed because the SSWS may be cperated et a pressure below that of the SACS so that any SACS r contamination could be discharged to the environment via-the SACS heat exchangers (should a tube leak occur) and the SSWS. As indicated in the-September 29,:1997 submittsl, the SSWS, contrary to the statement in Section 9.2.8.2 of the UFSAR, may also be operated at pressures below that of the RACS rasulting in the same: potential for release of contamination as hypothesized for. SACS. Accordingly, the September 29 --1997 submittal- from the licensee-proposes the-same monitoring requirements for RACS, should contamination be detected, as is currently required for SACS.

4 9711190236 971106 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P PDR 1

. --l

. _.~ .. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

^

i 3,0. EVALUATION As indicated in the September 29, 1997, application, the RACS is continuously monitored for contamination by instrument channels located at- the discharge of the RACS pumps. In addition,: the. cooling tower blowdown line is also continuously monitored to detect any contamination that may be transferred to the SSWS. The-alarm setpoints are Selected in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual to assure that total effcctive dose equivalent in '

unrestricted areas is below those limits stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Sect'n 20.1301(a)(1). The licensee's analysis indicates that, should the RACS acone contaminated, and a RACS heat exchanger tube rupture occur, the resulting- ,

r total effective dose equivalent in unrestricted arsus would be 1.1E-5, a small fraction of the 10 CFR Part 20, Section 20.1301(a)(1) limits. -

The NRC staff has review the licensee's application and concludes that the radiation monitors provided by the licensee, together with the suitably conservative alarm setpoints, assures that operators can take action to limit the release of radioactive material to unrestricted areas to suitably low 12vels. Moreover, the sampling requirements'in the proposed change to TS Table 4.11~.1.1.1-1 assure that any release to the environment will be properly characterized. The NRC staff notes that the licensee is proposing a change to a TS that is part of the Radiological Effluent TSs (RETS).- The RETS are no longer required to-be part of the TSs and may be eliminated upon application by the licensee. This elimination from the TS. would not eliminate the requirements, which would be documented in the Offsite Dose Calculation

, Manual.. Based upon the above.' the proposed change to TS Table 4.11.1.1.1-1 is acceptable.

The licensee has also proposed an. editorial change to TS Table 4.11.1.1.1-1.

In Liquid Release Type B, the licensee is proposing that the acronym for

- Sta+ior. Service Water System be changed frca GSW to SSWS. This proposed

- change will be addressed in a future license amendment.

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 comments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation of use of a l facility component-located within the restricted-area as defined in 10 CFR, Part 20 and changes surveillance requireannts. The PRC staff has determined j that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no l significant change 4. the types, of any effluents that may be released l offsite, and that-r/a is no significant increase in individual or cumulative  !

- occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a l

L l

i 1 -

E 3_

proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (62 FR 52161). 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 envjronmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that th- health and safety of the public wi.1i not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: D. H. Jaffe Date: November 6, 1997 x

k

--_ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ - - .