ML20199G593

Revised Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1997 for HCGS, Unit 1

ML20199G593
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	09/30/1997
From:	Ritzman R Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML20199G546	List: LR-N970732, Forwards MOR for Oct 1997 for HCGS & Revised MOR Sept 1997 ML20199G559 ML20199G593
References
NUDOCS 9711250217
Download: ML20199G593 (3)

Text

_ - _ - -

6 i

I DOCKET NO.: 50-354 i

UNIT:. Hope Creek j

DATE: '11/06/97 COMPLETED BY:

R.

Ritzman TELEPHONE:

(609) 339-1445 SUNNARY... 0F._ CHANGES,. 'I ESTS, _ AND_ EXPERIMENTS

{

EQR..THE HOPE C MONW AKPIEMBER 1991 The following items completed during September 1997 have been evaluated.to determines 1.

If the probability of occurrence or the consequences of-i an accident or malfunction-of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or j

2.

If_a possibility for an a':cident or malfunction of a

-different type than any evaluated previously in the safety i

analysis report may be created; or

'3.

If the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.

The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations showed that these items did not create a new safety hazard to the plant nor did they affect the safe shutdown of the_ reactor.

These items did not change the i

plant effluent-releases and did not alter the existing t

environmental impact.

The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations

-determined that no unreviewed safety or environmental questions

)

are involved.

uS===ry of Safety Evaluations i

i

-Rasian Changis SEC-0008, Pkg.

2, Hand Geometry A. cess Project.

This design change removes the security badge issue and retrieval booths from the-security center.

The design change involves a revision to

-the Security Plan,-which was submitted to the NRC for review on June 26, 1997.

The security badge issue and retrieval booths were removed because hand' geometry was installed, and a waiver was granted allowing security badges to be takin home.

}

The portion:ofEthis change that involves che Security Plan was made in accordance with 10CFR50.54 (p), and was approved by the NRC on September 2,~1997.

This design change does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.

R

.,m

O 4

l T_emporary Modificat % s S4Ba&Iy of Safety Evaluatio.ng THR*$7-012, Replacaer,t of Service Water Loop "B" Yard Dif fuser Beehive Grate with a Blind Flange.

This temporary modification replaces the "B" Service Water Loop Yard Diffuser beehive grate with a blind flange to maintain secondary containment integrity.

This temporary modification was installed in support of the "B" Service Water Loop outage.

A valve and rupture disc were removed for maintenance, which woulc Save allowed a direct path from the reactor building to the outside environment if the blind flange had not been installed.

l The blind flange is consistent with the Servi.:e Water piping in i

both design and materials and exceeds the secondary pressure requirements.

Secondary containment integrity will be maintained during all phases of the blind flange installation, operation, and removal.

The blind flange will only be installed during the "B" Service Water loop outage.

Therefore, this temporary i

modification does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.

~

Procedpros SugagIy_of Safety Evaluations NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0002 (Q), Revision 2, Nuclear Business Unit Organization.

This procedure' revision shifts responsibilities within the Salem operations department, revises the Salem operations organization succession of authority, and changes titles in both the Hope Creek and Salem operations departments.

l These changes do not affect any systems, structures, or components, and do not reduce any qualification or training requirements.

These changes are consistent with the intent of the Standard Review Plan.

Therefore, this procedure revision does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.

THC.OP-GP.EG-0001(Q), Revision 0, Safety Auxiliaries cooling System Flow Balanco Verification Procedure.

This new procedure was written to obtain actual system flows and differential pressures after adjusting throttle valves and during various Safety Auxiliaries Cooling System component alignments. The purpose of the procedure is to validate analytical values obtained via a computer model.

The components that are affected by this procedure each have at least-one 100% redundant component.

Each redundant component is physically and electrically separated from the other.

The

- component being tested will be removed from service and declared.

inoperable.

The procedure taaintains a suf ficient number of operable components and does not affect the systems ability to fulfill the design requirements.

Therefore, this new p.ocedure does not involve'an Unroviewed Safety Question.

l l

l

UFSAR Chance Notices Summary of Safety Evaluations CN 97-558, Nuclear Operations Department Organization Change.

This UFSAR change shifts responsibilities for the Nuclear Security and the Loss Prevention organizations within the Nuclear Operations Department.

These groups reported to the General Manager - Nuclear Maintenance.

As a result of this change notice, Loss Prevention will report to the General Manager _- Hope Creek Operations and Security wil? report to the General Manager Salem Operations.

These changes do not affect any systems, structures, or components, and do not reduce the any qualification or training requirements.

These changes are consistent with the intent of the1 Standard Review Plan.

Therefore, this UFSAR chance notice does not involve an-Unreviewed Safety Question.

Deficiency Rgoorts Summary of Safety Evaluation.g

'There were no changes in this category implemented during September 1997.

9ther Su-ery of Safety Evaluati2D HCR.8-008, Hopo Creek Reload Safety Evaluation for Cycle 7 Extension.

This safety evaluation was written to document the justification to extend the previously defined cycle 7 reload core design end cc cycle condition.

The extended operation of cycle 7 was evaluated by PSE&G.

The analyses and evaluations were. based on NRC approved methods obtained from GE, and assumed re.ted power operation to a higher exposure than previously

-analyzed and assumed a power coastdown to a new end of cycle exposure.

The evaluation and analysis assumptions have been selected to provide a bounding bases relative to actual projected operation.

No new functions or conditions are required of systems, structures or components during the extension period.

Operation was' conducted within the existing power / flow map and within allowable system configurations.

The nuclear, thermal-hydraulic, and thermal mechanical characteristics of the reload core are within-the existing UFSAR bases.

Therefore, this safety evaluation does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.

~

SCM0071, Use-of P1BACK Version 3.1 as a Backup to the Hope Creek Process Computer.- This safety. evaluation was written to document LtheLaddition of an independent off-line backup to the on-line process computer that is used to monitor process variables and to calculate plant parameters.

The use of the backup computer provides greater redundancy to allow for more accurate monitoring of core conditions if the process computer is unavailable.

Since

.the change is limited to changes to a backup computer, this safety evaluation does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.