ML20211K083
| ML20211K083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211K080 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710090134 | |
| Download: ML20211K083 (5) | |
Text
.
[gMI%
t UNITED STATES g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSl2N
,4 WASHINGTON, o,C. 30006 4 001 o
- ...+
SAFETY EVALUA110N BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.105 TO FACILITY OPfRATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY f
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 19, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated July 30 and 31, 1997, (Re brence 1), the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a reyuest for changes to the Hope Creek Generating
. Station, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would be to TS 4.1.3.1.2, " Control Rod Operability;" TS 3.1.3.6, " Control Rod Drivo j
Coupling;" TS 3.1.3.7, " Control Rod Position Indication;" TS 3.1.4.1, " Rod Worth Minimizer;" TS 3/4.1.4.2, " Rod Sequence Control System;"
TS 3/4.10.2, "Special Test Exceptions - Rod Sequence Control System;" the Bases for TS 2.2.1.2, " Average Power Range Monitor;" the Bases for TS 3/4.1.4, " Control Rod Program Controls;" and the Bases for TS 3/4.10.2,
" Rod Sequence Control System." The changes eliminate the Rod Sequence Control System (RSCS) Limiting Condition for Operation and Surveillance Requirements from the TSs and reduce the Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) low power setpoint to 10% from 20%.
Changes to other sections of the TSs delete references to the RSCS from the TSs and incorporate additional requirements necessary to support the elimination of the RSCS.
2.0 EVALUATION The RSCS restricts rod movement to minimize the individual worth of control rods to lessen the consequences of a Rod Drop Accident (RDA).
Control rod movement is restricted through the use of rod select, insert, and withdrawal blocks. The RSCS is a hardwired (as opposed to a computer controlled),
redundant backup to the RWM.
It is independent of the RWM in terms of inputs and outputs but the two systems are compatible. The RSCS is designed to monitor and block, when necessary, operator control rod selection, withdrawal and insertion actions, and thus assist in preventing significant control rod pattern errors which could lead to a control rod with a high reactivity worth (ifdropped). A significant pattern error is one of several abnormal events all of which must occur to have an RDA which might exceed fuel energy density limit criteria for the event. The RSCS was designed only for possible mitigation of the RDA and is active only during low power operation (currently, generally less than 20 percent power) when an RDA might be kkOUADON 4
P
i i-i :
significant. The RSCS provides rod blocks on detection of a significant i
pattern error and'does not prevent an RDA. A similar pattern control function is also pnrformed by the RW, a computer controlled system. All reactors j
having a nSCS also have an RW.
In August 1986 (Reference 2), the BWR Owners' Group (BWROG with General Electric proposed an Amendment 17 to GESTAR 1) in cooperation which would eliminate the requirement for the RSCS and retain (Reference 3) j 1
the RW but i
lower the setpoint for turn off (during startup) or turn on (during shutdown) to 10% from 20%. The NRC staff review concluded that the proposed changes were acceptable, and approved Amendment 17, but imposed several additional requirements which would be necessary to implement the changes. The staff's safety analysis and additional requirements were presented and discussed in an i
attachment to Reference 4.
(This review and approval is also available in Reference 3, page US.C-379.)
i The additional requirements were:
1-1)
The TSs should require provisions for minimizing operes hcs without the RW system operable.
2)
The occasional, necessary, use of a second operator replacement should be strengthened by a licensee's review of relevant procedures, related forms and quality control to assure that the second operator provides an effective and truly independent monitoring process. A discussion of this review should accompany the request.for RSCS removal.
l l
3)
Rod patteras used should be at least equivalent to Banked Position i
Withdrawal Sequence (BFWS) patterns.
3.0 EVALUATION L
The licenste has proposed changes to the TSs, and associated Bases, and otherwise addressed the concerns of the NRC staff related to removal of the RSCS as follows:
1.
Elimination of the RSCS requirements. The licensee has proposed the deletion of TS 3/4.1.4.2, which contains the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements associated with the RSCS. A note of explanation would be added which would document the removal of these requirements.
2.
Reduction of the RW setpoint to 10 percent. The requirements of TS 3.1.4.1 would be modified to decrease the RWM setpcint to 10% from 20%.
, i 3.
Increased administrative control of RWM operability (intended to result i
in decreased use of the second operator as a substitute for the RWM),
and implementation of Banked Pattern Withdrawal System (BPWS). The licensee's submittal dated June 19,-1997 addresses the procedures for second operator actions, when required, to ensure independent monitoring of the control rod patterns.
In addition. TS 3.1.4.1 would be changed to address inoperability of the RWN before the first twelve (12)lendar j-rods have been withdrawn. Under these conditions, one startup per ca i
4 year is permitted, provided that control rod withdrawal-is supervised by an operator or other technically qualified individual. The June 19, 1997, submittal commits to the BPWS, or equivalent, or an improved version.
4.
Changes to other sections of the TSs tre also proposed as necessary to delete reference to the RSCS from the TSs and to incorporate additional requirements necessary to support the elimination of the RSCS.
The NRC staff's review and basis for approval of the removal of the RSCS and lowering of the setpoint for the RWM, as proposed by the licensee in sections of the submittal relating to topics 1 and 2, above, are provided in References 2 and 3.
The proposed changes, in the June 19, 1997, submittal (as supplemented) fall within the scope of the staff's review and approval in Reference 1.
The licensee has increased the administrative control of the RWM, as required in the staff's review of RSCS removal. The proposed revised TSs require the RWM to be operable at the beginning of each startup (until twelve rods are withdrawn) with only one exception per year. This follows the pattern of previously a) proved RWM TSs (discussed in Refer 6nce 4) which have been found to provide tle desired improvement in reliability for the system. The TSs and procedures for the use of a second o>erator, or technically qualified individuals (when the.RWM is ino>eraale), have been reviewed and found to
-provide a suitable independent cieck on the rod patterns.
Based upon the above, and the incorporation into a license condition the licensee's commitment-to the BPWS or equivalent, or an improved version,- the NRC staff's
_ review of the proposed TSs that implement the removal of the RSCS indicates that the proposed TSs are appropriate, clearly stated, and are acceptable.
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 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
-. ' ' L::: :~
T~
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding l
(62 FR 45462). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth ir. 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, i
5.0 STATE CONSULTATIDH i
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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
4 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 canner, (2) such 4
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 Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe i
Date:
September 30, 1997 j
Y
5-i
7.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter and enclosures from L. Storz, Public Service Electric and Gas 2-Company (PSE&G), to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated June 19,1997 " Request for Change to Technical Specifications RSCS Elimination /RWM Low Power Setpoint Reduction." Letters dated July 30, 1997 from D. Powell, PSE&G, and July 31, 1997, from L. Storz, PSE&G, provided supplements to the June 19, 1997 letter.
2.
Letter and enclosures from T. A. Pickens, BWR Owners' Group, to G. Lainas, 4
-NRC, dated August 15, 1986, " Amendment 17 to GE Licensing Topical Report i
NEDE-24011-P-A.11 "
3.
NEDE-240ll-P-A-9, September 1988, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," (GESTAR II).
4.
Letter from A. Thadani, NRC, to J. Charnl(y, General Electric, dated December 27, 1987, " Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topicai Report NEDE-240ll-P-A, Revision 8, Amendment 17.11."
i i
l 4
4 4
w
.es a
v vw vr
.u~+
ao w -.
~ -