ML20211E695
| ML20211E695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211E686 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709300208 | |
| Download: ML20211E695 (3) | |
Text
-
p....,
.p UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
g 1
- g g
wAswinovow, o.c. sosse. coot
%,**.. f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OFJUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.103 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 INTRODUCIlQH By letter dated July 7,1997, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station, Technical Specification (TSs). The proposed amendment changes Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.8.4.2, " Motor Operated Valves - Thermal Overload Protection (BYPASSED)" to relocate the list of applicable valves (TS Table 3.8.4.2-1) to the Hope Creek Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
2.0 BACKGROUND
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act (the "Act") requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to state TSs to be included as part of the license.
The Commission's regulatory requirements related to the content of TSs are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. That regulation requires that the TSs include items in five specific categories, including (1) safety limits, d miting safety system settings and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls. However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TSs.
The Commission has provided guidance for the contents of TSs in its " Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors" (" Final Policy Statement"), 58 FR 39132 (July 22,1993), in which the Commission indicated that compliance with the Final Policy Statement satisfies Section 182a of the Act.
In particular, the Commission indicated that certain items could be relocated from the TSs to licensee-controlled documents, consistent with the standard enunciated in Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 273 (1979).
In
' that case, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board indicated that.
" technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the imposition of rigid conditions or limitations upon reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety."
c 9709300208 970916 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
_h
. The Commission amended 10 CFR 6 50.36 to set forth four criteria to be used in determining whether a particular matter is required to be included in the TS, as follows:
(1)
Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Tran,ient that either assumes the failure of or' presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (4) a structure, system, or component which operating experience or probabilis c safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety [. As a result, existing TS requirements which fall within or satisfy any of the criteria in the Final Policy Statement must be
. retained in the TS, while those TS requirements which do not fall within or satisfy these criteria may be relocated to other, licensee-controlled documents.
3.0 EVALUATION With regard to TS 3.8.4.2, the operability or bypassing of the motor operated valves (MOVs) thermal overlord protection continuously or during accident conditions by integral bypass devices (circuits) ensures that the thermal overload protection during accident conditions will not prevent the safety related valves, listed in TS Taole 3.8.4.2-1, from performing their safety functions.
The staff's review of the proposed change determined that the relocation of the list of bypassed thermal overload protection devices for MOVs, contained in TS Table 3.8.4.2-1, does not eliminate the requirements for the licensee to ensure that the thermal overload bypass circuits are capable of performing their safety function. Once this list is relocated from the TSs to the UFSAR, the licensee must continue to evaluate any changes to it in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Should the licensee's determination conclude that an unreviewed safety question is involved, due to either (1) an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents or malfunctions of equipment important to safety, (2) the creation of a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously, or (3) a reduction in the margin of safety, NRC approval and a license amendment would be required prior to implementation of the change. NRC inspection and
'The Commission recently adopted amendments to 10 CFR 50.36, pursuant to which the rule was revised to codify and incorporate these criteria.
See Final Rule, " Technical Specifications," 60 FR 36953 (July 19,1995). The Commission indicated that reactor core isolation cooling, isolation condenser, residual heat removal, standby liquid control, and recirculation pump trip systems are included in the TS under Criterion 4, although it recognized that other structures, systems, and components could also meet this criterion (60 FR36956).
. enforcement programs also enable the staff to monitor facility changes and licensee adherence to updated final safety analysis report commitments and to take any remedial action that may be appropriate.
The staff's review concluded that 10 CFR 50.36 does not require the list of thermal overload protection bypass circuits, for selected HOVs, to be retained in the TSs.
Requirements related to the operability, applicability, and surveillance requirements, including performance of testing to ensure operability of the thermal overload protection by) ass circuits, are re.ained in TS 3/4.8.4.2. However, the staff determined t1at the inclusion of the list of thermal overload protection bypass circuits is an operational detail related to the licensee's safety analyses which are adequately controlled by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
Therefore, the continued processing of license amendments related to revisions of the affected TS Table 3.8.4.2-1, where the revisions to those requirements do nct involve an unreviewed safety question under 10 CFR 50.59, would afford no significant benefit with regard to protecting the public health and safety.
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.
In a letter dated August 13, 1997, the State official indicated that there were no comments.
5.0 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.
The NRC 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, ar.d there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 43375)
Act.ordingly, 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.
6.0 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 uith 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 Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe Date: September 16, 1997
.