ML20248D778
| ML20248D778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D751 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908110132 | |
| Download: ML20248D778 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _
=g-crag [g
{
UNITED STATES g
8-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
J E
I wassmcTON, D. C. 20555
%,,,,, /
l-L SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION p
j SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.29 TO FACILITY OPgPgING LICENSE NO. NPF-57
]
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 5,1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 for the Hope Creek Generatino Station. The proposed amendment would increase the surveillance test intervals (STIs) for various Control Rod Block Function (CRBF) instrumentation in accordance with General Electric Company Licensing Topical Report (LTR) NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes reflect those standard TS revisions contained in NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement I which, based upon probabilistic analyses, justify the identified time extensions by reducing the potential for: 1) unnecessary plant scrams, 2) excessive equipment test cycles, and 3) diversion of personnel and resources on unnecessary testing. The NRC reviewed the findings in the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory. The staff concurs with the f_indings of the TER and finds that NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1 provides an acceptable basis for extending surveillance test intervals for control rod block functional instrunientation. The NRC staff approved the Licensing Topical Report in the letter and accompany (ing Safety Evaluation Report (SER), from C. E. Rossi (NRC) to D. N. Grace BWR Owners' Group) dated September 22, 1988.
PSE&G has extended the generic analysis completed by the BWR Owners' Group to HCGS by completing the required plant specific analysis. As stated in the NRC's SER for Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1, two issues must be addressed to justify the applicability of the generic a.nalysis to individual plants when specific facility Technical Specifications are cer.sidered for revision.
1.
Confirm the applicability of the generic analysis of NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1 to the plant.
h kf>0
[,
P
W;,-o L
w ab 2
.I Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1 Appendix B
)
identifies PSE&G as a participating utility in the development of the Technical Specification Improvement Analysis for BWR Control Rod Block Function Instrumentation.
In addition, Table 3-1 identifies HCGS as a plant wi.ich enforces the red block function through the Reactor Manual Control System (RMCS).
PSE&G has reviewed the' assumptions and design details contained in the NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement I and concluded that the report is applicable to and bounds the design of HCGS. The. staff agrees.
2.
Confirm that any increase in instrument drift due to the extended STIs 1s properly accounted for in the setpoint-calculation methodo7ogy.
(For additional information on this issue, see letter from C. E..Rossi to R. F. Janecek, dated April 27, 1989).
The guidance provided in the Rossi to Janecek' letter indicated that:
... licensees need only confirm that the setpoint drift whfch could be expected under the extended STIs has been studied and either (1) has been shown to remain within the existing allowance in the-
...setpoint calculation or (2) that the allowance and setpoint have been adjusted to account for the additional expected drift..
The Rod Block Monitor and APRM trip functions were reviewed to determine
- whether the increased functional test frierval affected the setpoint drift calculation.
Calculation of the orift of these trip function setpoints is based upon their channel calibration interval of 6 months which is not affected by this proposed change.
Similarly, the drift of the Scram Discharge Volume trip function setpoint is based upon its channel calibration interval of 550 days which is not affected by this proposed change. Therefore, the staff concludes that the setpoint drift for these three trip functions will remain within the existing allowance in the setpoint calculation when the channel functional test. interval is increased from monthly to quarterly.
The drift of the Reactor Coolant System Recirculation Flow trip function setpoint'is based upon the channel functional test interval which does vary with time. A review of the setpoint calculation with an increased surveillance interval, from monthly to quarterly, has been performed.
Sufficient margin exists within the setpoint calculations to conclude that revisions to the current TS setpoints are not required. The drift that is expected under the extended STI will remain within~the existing allowable margins.
In conclusion, the proposed increases in the STI for the identified trip functions do not require any corresponding changes in the Control Rod Block setpoints. This conclusion wcs reached because the drift L
3-characteristics for the instrumentation with extended STIs are bounded by the current setpoint calculations. Hence, the staff concludes assumptions used in NEDC-30851P-A, Supplement 1 when the functional test interval it extended from monthly to quarterly can be applied to HCGS.
3.0 RESULTS OF EVALUATION Based on the staff's review of 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, and the proposed amendment is acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirenrnt with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and cnanges to the surveillance requirements. 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission 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 CFR51.22(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
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 25376) on June 14, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received, and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
The staff 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be l
inimical to the comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Y. Shiraki l
l Dated:
July 28, 1989 I
o n_;