ML20246Q213
| ML20246Q213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1989 |
| From: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246Q219 | List: |
| References | |
| NLR-N89086, NUDOCS 8905220413 | |
| Download: ML20246Q213 (4) | |
Text
. -. _ _ _ _ - -. _ _ - -
_.e,.
' Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Cornpany
'n
. Cleven E. Miltenberger.
Public Service Electric and Gas Cornpany P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 '
! dce PresMont and chm Nuclear Officer -
NLR-N89086 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control' Desk.
Washington, DC' 20555
- Gentlemen:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT - RPS AOT/STI INCREASE.
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted a Request for Amendment (LCR 89-01) on February 6, 1989 (NLR-N89018) to increase'the surveillance test intervals (STIs) and allowable out-of-service times.(AOTs) for the Reactor Protection System.(RPS).in accordance uith General Electric Company's (GE) Licensing' Topical Report (LTR) NEDC-30851P-A.
As a result of the NRC staff review of LCR 89-01, several questions arose which were discussed with PSE&G on April-5, 1989.
From the
' discussion. PSE&G committed to revise the appropriate Technical Specif1 cations (TS).
This transmittal provides those TS additions end changes necessary to respond to the NRC staff's concerns. to this transmittal summarizes the NRC staff's concerns and provides the PSE&G response, while Attachment 2 contains the appropriate TS changes.
From the discussions provided, PSE&G has concluded that these TS changes do not affect the discussions or conclusions contained in the 2/6/89 transmittal and therefore, do not altect the No Significant
' Hazards Consideration determination.
Please note that TS page 3/4'3-5 is an addition to the 2/6/89 transmittal while the changes to TS pages 3/4 3-7 and 3/4 3-8 replace the same pages previously provided.
,0 I
\\
8905220413 890504 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
Document' Control Desk 2
5-4-89 NLR-N89086 Should you have any additional questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, HEM-Attachments (2) c Mr. C.
Y.
Shiraki USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. G.
W. Meyer USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. K. Tosch, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
ATTACHMENT 1 TO NLR-N89086
SUMMARY
OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL CHANGES TO-LICENSE CHANGE REQUEST (LCR) 89 REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM ALLOWABLE OUT-OF-SERVICE TIME AND SURVEILLANCE TEST INTERVAL INCREASE The following summary addresses an addition and a change to Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) License Change Request (LCR) 89-01 submitted on February 6, 1989.
Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-1, Note (a), Pace 3/4 3-5:
l' As part of LCR 89-01, the allowable out-of-service time (AOT) for the Reactor Protection System (RPS) was increased from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for RPS repair and from 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for RPS testing.
These' changes were reflected on TS page 3/4 3-1, TS 3.3.1.a and Footnote *, respectively; however, the same statement contained in the asterisk footnote also exists as Note (a) in TS Table 3.3.1-1 on page 3/4 3-5.
This latter reference was inadvertently overlooked during the development of the original submittal even though the Licensing Topical Report revised both statements.
The NRC staff, during their review of LCR 89-01, noticed this omission and requested PSE&G to appropriately revise page 3/4 3-5.
Therefore, Attachment 2 contains the necessary revision to page 3/4 3-5 and should be considered an addition to f
the-2/6/89 submittal.
Since the 2/6/89 submittal already discusses such a revision, this additional change is mearly administrative in nature and assures that all TS references to the AOT for RPS testing are consistent.
Therefore, this addition to LCR 89-01 does not affect the conclusion reached that the increased RPS AOT does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Technical Specification Table 4.3.1.1-1, Note (k), Page 3/4 3-7 I
and Pace 3/4 3-8:
As part of LCR 89-01, the surveillance test interval (STI) for various RPS channel functional tests was increased from either weekly or monthly to quarterly.
The LTR identified TS changes to the channel functional test column of TS Table 4.3.1.1-1 and the corresponding table notation.
PSE&G revised the channel functional test column; however, the corresponding change to the table's notation was not included in LCR 89-01 since the HCGS TS do not contain the same table notation as shown in the LTR.
The NRC staff questioned whether the table notation was indeed applicable to HCGS since the notation indicated that for various Page 1 of 2
I trip functions, the trip setpoint of the trip unit was verified during the performance of the channel functional tests.
i PSE&G confirmed that for the following trip functions, trip l
setpoint verification is performed during their channel functional test:
Reactor Vessel Steam Dome Pressure - High; Reactor Vessel Water Level - Low, Level 3; Drywell Pressure -
High; and the Scram Discharge Volume Water Level - High, Level Transmitter / Trip Unit.
As a result, the addition of such a. note would be reflective of current and future RPS testing activities at HCGS.
Since the NRC staff felt that such a note was necessary in order to assure that LCR 89-01 matched the changes included in the LTR, PSE&G committed to include such a notation as Note (k) to TS Table 4.3.1.1-1. contains revised TS pages 3/4 3-7 and 3/4 3-8 which replace the same pages provided in the 2/6/89 submittal.
Since this change simply reflects the same type of change justified in the LTR, PSE&G has concluded that the statements made in the 2/6/89 submittal and the conclusions reached regarding no significant hazards consideration determination are still valid.
Page 2 of 2
- - - ___- _