ML25182A205
| ML25182A205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2025 |
| From: | Bernard Thomas Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Bryant J NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL1 |
| Kim J | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2024-LLI-0000 | |
| Download: ML25182A205 (3) | |
Text
From:
Thomas, Brian J.
To:
Jack Minzer Bryant
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Verification of Hope Creek ITS LAR Editorial Discrepancies Date:
Monday, June 30, 2025 9:03:38 AM Attachments:
image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Jack:
The table accurately summarizes the ITS LAR issues and PSEG responses.
Brian
Brian Thomas l Principal Licensing Engineer T. +1.856-339-2022 (mainly working remotely)
M. +1.856-313-3185 brian.thomas@pseg.com
From: Jack Minzer Bryant <jack.minzerbryant@nrc.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 8:57 AM To: Thomas, Brian J. <Brian.Thomas@pseg.com>
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Verification of Hope Creek ITS LAR Editorial Discrepancies
- CAUTION***
- CAUTION***
- CAUTION***
This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL address. The actual sender is (prvs=2699ad5cd=jack.minzerbryant@nrc.gov) which may be different from the display address in the From: field. Be cautious of clicking on links or opening attachments. Suspicious?
Report it via the Report Phishing button. On mobile phones, forward message to Cyber Security.
- Brian,
Here is a list of the editorial discrepancies/issues we have discussed via email over the last few weeks.
Please confirm that this table summarizes the issues, and the response column accurately reflects your responses.
Issue Description
Response
1 It looks like there is a typo in both the original submittal and revision.
Specifically, in A03 for ITS section 3.5.2, it states change is designated as more restrictive this change is only
These errors are found on page 74 of volume 10 of both revisions.
In regards to ITS Section 3.5.2 DOC A03 (Jack to clarify you stated ITS 3.5.3 in your e-mail, but it is really ITS 3.5.2 DOC A03 on page 74 of Volume 10), I believe that you and Shane had a verbal discussion, but I didnt see any e-mail on the item.
So for completeness, we have confirmed that the ITS 3.5.2 DOC A03 stating change is designated as more restrictive this change is only was in error should have stated that this is designated as an administrative change. Again this should be considered an administrative issue.
2 The Change Category for ITS/CTS No. and DOC No. 3.4.3 L01, which is 6 according to the doc tables, cannot be confirmed by enclosure 9 of either the LAR or LAR rev.1 Yes, this was an administrative oversight in that the LAR did not
because they do not mention the category. This seems to be an administrative error and should remain as change category 6, as seen in the doc tables.
contain the change category for ITS 3.4.3 DOC L01. Excel and I have both confirmed that the Category 6 characterization in the DOC Table is the appropriate category for this L DOC.
3 We identified a few discrepancies in the clean pages. This issue is not substantial, but for your awareness and if you could clarify how/why the change was made:
See Hope Creek TS page 3.9.4-2.
The following is in R1:
The following is in the clean page:
It appears that you added the highlighted text to the clean page to be consistent with the TS writers guide TSTF-GG-05-01REVISION 1 (section 2.5.7 item f).
Note R5 of the STS (NUREG-1433 R5) did not include the highlight so R1 is consistent with the STS but the STS appears to be inconsistent with the writers guide.
The same issue applies to TS pages 3.9.7-2 and 3.9.8-2.
The feedback I got is as follows.
Due to page rolls throughout the ITS, per the ITS Writers Guide as an option for the final clean version, continued is added when Conditions are split across a page. This is a licensee clean type presentation preference not included in the ISTS markups due to numerous page rolls throughout and would not match due to inserts and deletions in the LAR mark ups. The ISTSNUREGs intentionally do not use the continued since it is understood that plant specific ITS pages will roll differently.
Other ITS conversions have been done the same way and issued with no challenge from the NRC staff in the past.
4 TS 3.7.3, Action B.2, the comma between "radiological" and "chemical" appears to be struck out (erroneously) in Rev 1 and then fixed in the clean pages.
The markup erroneous deleted the comma in the ISTS markup.
We put this back in the clean type pages. This is an administrative error in the markup.
5 Issue #3 regarding the use of (continued) seems to appear consistently throughout the clean TSs.
see previous response 6
ITS 3.3.1.1 DOC A14 (in Revision 1) states in part, the following:
CTS Table 4.3.1.1-1, Function (g), which applies to the Channel Calibration of Functions 2.b (Simulated Thermal Power - Upscale) and 2.f (OPRM Upscale), states that the calibration includes the flow input function.
Based on the CTS markup, it appears that Function should be Footnote.
The issue is that R1 TS 3.3.1.1 A14 DOC description is not accurate/consistent with the CTS markups.
Note, Supp 2 touched the spec in DOC A14, and it appears it should state footnote.
In the first sentence of the ITS 3.3.1.1 DOC A14 we erroneously change footnote (g) to Function (g). This should be footnote (g).
This is considered another administrative error.
7 The highlighted text below is missing from footnote f in ITS Table 3.3.2.1-1, Control Rod Block Instrumentation. Please confirm that this is administrative/editorial and correct the clean TS pages.
(e) THERMAL POWER 63% and 83% RTP and MCPR less than the value specified in the COLR.
(f) THERMAL POWER 83% RTP and MCPR less than the value specified in the COLR.
(g) THERMAL POWER 30% RTP and MCPR less than the value specified in the COLR.
In regard to the below item, this was an administrative error in the markup of the ITS page, we should have retained the RTP in Note (f) of ITS Table 3.3.2.1-1.
PSEG will correct the clean TS pages to add the RTP to Note (f) of ITS Table 3.3.2.1-1. Our plan is to provide the corrected clean TS page along with the ITS page that needs to be corrected for the ITS LAR Supplement once we submit the supplement. Let me know if you need this sooner.
Very Respectfully,
Jack Minzer Bryant, Project Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Operating Reactor Licensing NRR/DORL/LPL2-1 (301) 415-0610
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.