ML20207Q492
| ML20207Q492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NLR-N86178, NUDOCS 8701270426 | |
| Download: ML20207Q492 (6) | |
Text
r t
Public Service Electric and Gas Cornpany Corbin A. McNeill, Jr.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236. Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 -
Mco President -
Nuclear Novr.nber 25, 1986 NLR-N86178 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention:
Dr. Thomas E.
- Murley, Regional Administrator Gentlemen:
INITIAL START UP TEST PROGRAM CHANGES HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 In accordance with license condition 2.c.10 of Operating License NPF-57 and the provisions of 10 CPR 50.59, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) is submitting 39 copies of the changes made to the Hope Creek Initial Start-up Test Program.
This program is described in Chapter 14 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). contains a description, justification, and summary of the 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation for each change. contains associated marked up FSAR pages incorporating these changes.
Per the requirements of 10 CFRN50.59, paragraph (a)(2), none of these changes involve an unreviewed safety question.
The 10 CPR 50.59 safety evaluations on file provide the basis for this conclusion.
\\
If you have any questions in regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, 8701270426 861125 PDR ADOCK 05000354 p
- y* yl)b Attachment
Dr. Thomas E. Murley 2
11-25-86 C
Mr.
D.
H. Wagner USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. R. W. Borcha rd t USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. J. M. Taylor Director - Inspection and Enforcement I
y
ATTACHMENT 1 Description of Change This change to PSAR Figure 14.2-5, entitled " Test Schedule and Conditions," indicates that the second cold quick start of the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system has been deferred from Test Condition 3 (TC-3) to TC-6.
The change consists of adding Note 29 to the "x" in test column 6 under the HPCI Test.
Note 29 states that the "second of two cold quick starts may be performed in TC-6, if first cold quick start in TC-3 is successful."
Reason for Change As described in FSAR Section 14.2.12.3.13 (pg. 14.2-167),
reliability of the HPCI system is demonstrated by satisfactorily performing two consecutive reactor vessel injections, i.e.,
two cold quick starts.
Cold is defined as a minimum of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> without any kind of HPCT. operation.
The first cold quick start was successfully completed on November 6, 1986.
To administratively close the TC-3 plateau review, the second cold quick start was deferred to TC-6.
The HPCI system has demonstrated its operability thru satisf actory performance of the first cold quick start in TC-3 and successful completion of the station operating surveillances.
However for analysis purposes, until the second cold quick start is performed, it is assumed that upon demand, the HPCI system will not start.
This loss of HPCI is bounded by the Chapter 15 analysis of the FSAR.
This assumption is conservative as HPCI has been proven capable of starting satisfactorily in both the cold quick start and hot quick start modes.
No modifications to the system design, equipment, or operation have been made.
Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of occurrence of a HPCI system malfunction.
10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation Summary The following is a summary of the safety evaluation conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 for this change.
Paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 50.59 requires that the following 3 questions be responded to in order to determine if an unreviewed safety question is involved.
1.
Does the proposed change increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment related to safety, as previously evaluated in the FSAR?
No.
The probability of occurrence of system malfunction is not increased as no changes have been made to the design, equipment, or operating procedures.
Without any changes, the probability of malfunction remains the same as when the first cold quick start was performed.
The consequences of an accident (HPCI not starting) are bounded by the analysis for loss of HPCI provided in Chapter 15 of the PSAR.
2.
Does the proposed change create a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different. type than any evaluated previously in the FSAR?
No.
Total loss of HPCI is assumed in the DBA analysis.
No change in the system design or operation is being made.
3.
Does the proposed ~ change toduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any. Technical' Specifications?
No.
The proposed change does not affect the margin of safety.
Backup systems are still available if HPCI does not start.
Since the response to these three questions is no, the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
L i
i I
4 4
9 d
t 1
z
-r O
O
+
ATTACHMENT 2
}
r l
4 t
e
+-... -
--.,-,,.,--,---w.-
-,._n,_-,,,_...,ey,_.-
,-.,.,..e-._,,...,,,.,,.g_,
.,..n--.e.,---.,,an..
,w-,.r.,.,
e e
s TEST OPEN HEAT 03 Test mens
- ma plant (211 hdurinocooldoen Mt1 TEST IsAfsE 2
3 4
5 g
conditens on F epare 14.2 4 from test casesitsen 8 VESSEL UP (2) Perfann Tear 5, timeng of 4 (22) The seat nundsor een messes to 1
Chemical and Radenchemscal X
X X
X X
selected com rol rodt in FSAR Section W2.3m 2
Radiation Mesmesment X
X X
3 Fuel Leading X
4 Fus Core SW Margin X
(3) Dynonnic Svarem Test case no E23) May be pertenned any tone test 5
Control Rod Drive X
X D
XI C
XI Xt be compasted bensson aest
^ - pommt U
6 SRM Portermance X
g a
conditens I and 3 8
IRM Per9ermance QQ X
X g4g4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,
M E W W not ymvisuely 9
LPRM Cadeiration X
X X
X (natural ceculation) 10 APRef Caiteration X
X X
X X
X
@g 11 Process Conputer X
XOI X
X (5) SenesenOOsndS0pesseet
("b 12 RCIC \\
X XO*3 T&c c e (J 3 4.tJ,.
ut) 09) thermal power, and near 100 13 HPCI 34 3
X X
X Xtef D'rcent core now
,(e,..as fr ties Ef 14 Setected Process Temp X as x
e..j 6
X 14 Waeor Level Ref Leg Temp X
X X
gp., py p,g,g, g,p Recirc Pg Runtest anset
- )
15 Syssem E xponeen X
X X
X X
have streedy boen P c on v e nie.(, g g 4g,,,,
17 Core Perforrrence X
X X
X X
X 10 Steam Production X
(7) Reactorpowerbenmean80and fem fes4 ce=4.W en 90 percent 20 Pressure Reguisear X
X X
X X
X I 3)My S er b.
a g
- 18) Reactor power h 45 assi 21 Feed Sys - Setpome Changes X
X X
X X
X X
$6 percent and 75 and 30 percent 21 Feed Sys - Loss FW Hesteg XM Ud 21 Feed = ster Punip Trip Xsst
- 19) Deleted Pedeemed ws,M Gfa t'a* 8' 21 Men m Runenat Wity XA 22 Turtiane value Surveillance XIBl XHol
- 00) At rneximum power that wiR not Tg"< bil'd f* $P "D
23 MSIV Functaonal Test X
XUll cause scram 23 MSiv Fun isolerion offestemately Je*7 X
(11) Perform between test cond6tions 24 Relief vatwes X/XI208 XIEDI XIIot t end 3 f f *d8* Jo eW P.
25 Turtune Trip and Lead ReMian X5g XH78 H
28 Shuido.n Duiside CRC X
X p23 Deseied m) A be pe d***g f
27 Recirculaten Floes Control XHit Xust 29 Races - One Pump Trip (13) Deleted
- d**e Nae +ee p *W 4 X
X 28 RPT Tno-Two Purrips XHM
- 04) Between test conditions 2 and 3 pes 4er mg ec gg.sj to 28 Roewc System Performance X
X X
X gy l
, yE 28 Recire SYS. mm g
(15) Turbinetrip, withir. bypass valve caoacity frej esen.
g X
30 Loso of 0h Pwr Y
X 31 Pee Vteration X
X X
X X
X gg,) ppcr jg,g,k M* aat 116) Deleted
/
29 Racire Flow Calibration X
X (17) Loed repection j8Ma #J/7 jaMad'M[
32 RWCU XO38 33-RHR XQ33 XOtt
- 08) Setween test conditions 5 and g M 5es J er+,.ceWq.hti M 34 Drywen and Steam Tunnai Cooling X
X X
X X
- 1 4' I ia 35 Gaseous Radusaste X
X X
9) p wor and >95 care no
6f Dest t84 pk steet 38 SACS Performance X
X (20) Check SRV opeabaity dsring
,,,y" yK g
j g4 g
40 Confamatory IwPlant Test X
X y
y y
y snepor scram tears CAE FSAR M f osAL SAFETY Assatysss Repuett TEST SCHEDULE Alm CONDITIONS rsauns se 2 s ts. esas 4
J e
s