ML20244D020

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 26 to License NPF-57

ML20244D020
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/05/1989
From:	Shiraki C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20244D016	List: ML20244D020
References
NUDOCS 8906160036
Download: ML20244D020 (4)

Text

m

. ~ <

p%

a swa n%,;

. UNITED STATES

~'

.f p,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j

- wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555

,9 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE'0F' NUCLEAR REACT R REGULATION.

i SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.26 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE'RO. NPF-57 1

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC 8 GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ByletterdatedFebruary6,.1989andsupplemededonMay4.1989,P'ublic Service Electric & Gas Company requested an' amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-51 for the. Hope Creek Generating. Station. The I

amendment would increase the surveillance test interyals_(STIs) proposed..

H and-allowable out-of-service times (ADTs) for the" Reactor Protection System in-accordance with General Electric Company Licensing Topical ~ Report (LTR) ~

~

NEDC-30851P-A. The supplemental information clarifies, and does not change, the technical content of the original change request. Libus it did-not alter the action noticed, or affect the initial determination published, in the Federal Register on May 3, 1989.

2.0 EVALUATION

,]1 The proposed changes reflect those standard TS revisions contained in NEDC-30851P-A which, based upon probabilistic' analyses, justify the identified time extensions by reducing the potential for: '1) unnecessary N!

plant scrams; 2): excessive equipment test cycles; and 3) diversion of.

(

personnel and resources on unnecessary testing. The NRC' staff. has reviewed and approved this Licensing Topical Report in the letter, and-di accompanying Safety Evaluation Report (SER), from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to -

T. A. Pickens (BWR Owners Group) dated h ly 15. 1987..

r.,.

.PSE4G has exterded the generic analysis completed by the BWR Owners Group j?I to HCGS by completing the required plant specific' analysis. ' As ' stated in i

the NRC's SER for Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A, three issues.

"l must be addressed to justify the applicability of the generic analysis to individual plants when specific facility Technical Specifications are

{

considered for revision.

1.

Confirm the applicability of the generic analysis to the specific facility.

Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A,' Appendix L identifies' PSE&G as a i

participating. utility in the development of the'RPS Technical Specification Improvement Analysis.: Section 7.4' specifies that although'-

"the evaluation found various differences between the RPS configuration-i of various_ plants and.the generic plant....the generic results can be I

)

PNU y

- _ - __ _ __ A

. appliedtoplantsinthe.BWROGTechnicalSpecificationsImprovement Program." Therefore, the generic analysis contained within the referenced _ report is applicable to HCGS.

2.

Demonstrate that'the drift characteristics for RPS channel instrumentation are bounded by the assumptions used in NEDC-30851P-A when the functional test interval is extended from monthly to quarterly.

PSE&G utilizes a setpoint calculation methodology for the RPS instrumentation which calculates the Technical Specification Trip-Setpoint by subtracting the Loop Drift from the Technical Specification Allowable Value. This drift varies with time and hence the length of the surveillance interval is a factor in determining total ~ instrument drift.

Therefore, the current drift information provided by the equipment vendors and the applicable setpoint calculations for the HCGS RPS have been reviewed using the revised STIs as an input function. Even with the proposed increase in the surveillance interval, all instrumentation remain within their current Technical Specification Allowable Yalues. As a result it can be concluded that the proposed increases in the surveillance intervals do not require any corresponding changes to the-RPS setpoints because the drift characteristics for RPS channel instrumentation are bounded by the assumptions used-in NEDC-30851P-A when the functional test interval is extended from weekly / monthly to quarterly.

3.

Confirm that the differences between the parts of the RPS that-perform the trip functions in the plant and those of the base case plant were included in the specific analysis done using the procedures of Appendix K to NEDC-30851P-A.

In the General Electric (GE) Company Report MDE-85-0485 Revision 1 dated August 1988, the Technical Specification Improvement Analysis for the Reactor Protection System for Hope Creek Generating Station, the generic study completed in Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851 for modifying the RPS was extended to HCGS. The GE report utilizes the procedures of Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P, Appendix K to identify and evaluate the differences between the parts of RPS that perform the trip functions at HCGS and those of the base case plant. The results indicate that while the RPS configuration for HCGS has several differences compared to the configuration in the base case, the differences and their impact do not significantly affect the applicability of the Technical Specifications changes developed by the generic efforts of Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P. Therefore, the conclusions reached in NEDC-30851P apply to l

HCGS and the plant-specific changes contained in this request are bounded by both the generic analycis and the NRC's SER.

3.0 RESULTS OF EVALUATION Based on the evaluation above, the staff finds that HCGS has met the plant specific conditions to apply the results of General Electric Company's Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A to the Hope Creek Generating Station.

s

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance ro ufrements. -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 1

significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.- The Commission 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.

5.0 CONCLUSION

l The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves

)

no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 18956) on May 3,1989 and. consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public comments were received. The coment from the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering of the State of New Jersey and its resolution appear below:

)

Comment:

If Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) uses a method for calculating set point drift that is different from that used by the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG), are their method and their conclusions valid?

Resolution: As noted by PSE&G License Change Request 89-02, l, paragraph 2, General Electric Company's Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P does not contain quantitative instrument drift assumptions.. Hence, additional guidance was provided in an NRC letter dated April 27, 1988. The letter specifies that itcensees must confirm that the setpoint drift which could be expected under the extended Surveillance Test Intervals (STIs) has been studied and either (1) has been shown to remain within the existing allowance in the Reactor Protection S Actuation System (ESFAS)ystem.(RPS) and Engineered Safety Features setpoint calculation or (2) that the allowance and setpoint have been adjusted to account for the-additional expected drift.

In License Change Request 89-02, paragraph 2 of Attachment 1, PSE&G confirmed that all i

instrumentation remained within their current Technical Specification allowable values. This confirmation satisfies the requirements of the NRC letter dated April 27, 1988.

r-6 l

1

~.

I -l 1

l l

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed abova, that:

(1).there 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 Commission's regulations and the. issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to'the health and. safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:'

C. Y. Shira ki

.1 Dated: June 5, 1989 l

1 i

1 W

I

)

l l

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