ML20066B723

Application for Amend to License NPF-57,revising Administrative Controls Section of Tech Specs.Description of Requested Amend,Supporting Info & Analyses for Change & Basis for NSHC Determination Encl

ML20066B723
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/28/1990
From:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20066B724	List: ML20066B723 ML20066B730
References
NLR-N90237, NUDOCS 9101080291
Download: ML20066B723 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Millenberger Public Service Electnc and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 3391100 vice rmioeni and CNe' Nackar 0%cer DEC 2 81920 NLR-N90237

Reference:

LCR 90-05 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits an application to amend Appendix A of Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 in accordance with 10CFR50.90. This amendment request would revise the Administrative Controls section of the Hope Creek Generating station (HCGS) Technical Specifications.

A description of the requested amendment, supporting information and analyses for the change, and the basis for a no significant hazards consideration determination are provided in Attachment 1.

The Technical Specification pages affected by the proposed change are marked-up in Attachment 2.

Upon NRC approval of this proposed change, PSE&G requests that the amendment be made effective on the date of issuance, but implementable within sixty days to provide sufficient time for associated procedural modifications.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.91(b) (1) , PSE&G has provided a copy of this amendment request to the State of New Jersey.

00 r 9101080291 9o122g k\

hDR ADOCK 05000334 PDR UUJUA(

Document Control Desk UEC 2 8 1990 NLR-N90237 Should you have any questions regarding this request, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

, f b=kff g;g Attachments Af fidavi t C Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. S. Dembok USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. P. Johnson USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Chief, Dureau of Nuclear Engineering Now Jersey Department of Environmental-Protection

n l

i Reft NLR-N90237 STATE OF NEW JERSEY .)

) SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM )

S. La Bruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President - Nuclear Operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated . DE C 2 8 1990 , concerning the Hope Creek-Generating Station, are true to the best of my knowledge,

.information and belief.

/

30 rY l+rz-r~

-Subscribed and Sworn to 53 fore me this d Y I day of Ieav,c/b>,1990

' l, -

(/ Al/fQv

, Notary PUblic of New Jersey DetausDHADOGN My' Commission expires'on we @ W NmJersey _

._ .aa,13eg .

i

4 Ref: LCR 90-05 ATTACilMENT 1 PROPOSED TECIINICAL SPECIFICATION CilANGE l

l

. .. ~ . -- --

.- ..- - ,. . ~. - . -

i *

~h(.

I

' PROPOSED CIIANGE- TO 'THB TECilNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 ilOPE CREEK' GENERATING STATION -l 5 _ DOCKET NO. 50-354 i ref: LCR 90-05

pESCRIPTION OF TIIE CilANGE As shown' on the marked-up Technical Specifications -(TS) pages in Attachment 2, lPSE&G requests-that Adinistrative Controls, UNIT STAFF, Section 6.2.2 be-revised .to: reflect the current flope Creek Generating Station (11C0S) operating 3 ishif ti schedules, which: average 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week, but. consist of- twelve hour' i chilts. The same limitations on excess _ive overtime are maintained as in the

, present TS. Additionally;; modify = Administrative Controls, TECilNICAL REVIEW LAND CONTROL, pection-6.5.3.2.c to indicate that Station Qualifled Reviewers.

. meet'or exceed the qualifications: described'in Section 4.1 and 4.7 of ANS 3.1,

'1981.

i t

4 .

f I

, a

/

REASON'FOR TIIE CilANGE: ,

t UNIT STAFPL TS-6.2.2 _. 3 Asipart:of: an extended . test,2 (over one year) the operating personnel at 11C08

have worked 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> _shif ts for three or- four days per week wherein they-

average forty-hours.per_ week. The' proposed' change' removes existing TS wording. '

that1conflicts with.this work schedule. }

- TECilNICAL' REVIEW AND:CONTR0Li-TS 6.5.3.2.c _ _

& The current TS indicates that~ Station Qualified Reviewers will meet or exce^d-

-the qualifications-described in Section-4 4 of ANS 3.1, 1981. This Section b does'not adequately provide qualification for review personnel in the areas of

? Operations"and' Maintenance. The proposed ANS Sections in this change are more appropriate for the review function, in general, and encompass all pertinent

.disciplin'es.

_ _- . .- - . , , ~ _ ,- g m, %y g -sw.- y y ,

E e

i a-

~ .'i}

i JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE- [

' UNIT STAFF, TS 6-2.2 The-current 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift schedule, which has been in place for two years-as l part of_a trial,:has enjoyed a high degree of acceptance among shift personnel,

~both; workers and supervision alike. During the trial period, shift workers

.haveLdemonstrated. higher morale, a high degree of alertness, high productivity, '

and. lower incidence of absence due to illness. .0'n the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift schedule,-

personnel _ceceive more consecutive time off and remain on the same shift for i blocks'of-time as. opposed'to rotating to different hours each. work week; these Econditions are considered as contributors to a healthier work force and improved ~ productivity in EPRI NP-6748, " Control Room Operator Alertness and .

Performance in Nuclear Power Plants", dated February, 1990.  !

TECHNICAL REVIEW-AND CONTROL, TS 6.5.3.2.c Section 4.4 of ANS:3.1,~1981- contains-qualifications for. professional-technical

group leaders,.whileLSection-4.7 pertains directly.to review personnel and is

.the more appropriate standard for delineating the qualifications-of Station

? Qualified Reviewers.  !

i

_10CFR50.92 SIGNIFICANT' HAZARDS-CONSIDERATION ANALYSIL PSE&G_has, pursuant to 10CFR50.92,- reviewed;the proposed amendment to determine

.whetherLour request involven a significant hazards consideration. We have determinedLthat:-

f 1Thg operationLof; Hope Creek Generatino Station (HCGS)- in accordance with- the

' proposed chance will not-involve a significant -increase in the probability or

a. . consequences of an accident previously evaluated.  ;

-The= proposed amendment does not involve a physical or procedural change to-any

structure, component or system that significantly.affects_the probability or-

^ consequences'of'anyEaccident or malfunctionJof equipment important to= safety 1 -;

previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)'. The Lproposed changes will 'l)Lpermit the use of 12. hour shif ts which average 40.

(hours periveek and in-allLother aspects, satisfy the current hours-of-work 1

-guidelines linLTSL6.2.2 for operating shifts.and--2)(change the TS 6.5.3.2;c-specified ANS 3.I', 1981 section which. delineates =the qualifications of the-StationtQualified Reviewer position to the appropriate ANS 3.1,'1981-Section.

-These changes are. administrative in nature and have no significant impact on the probabilities or consequences of any evaluated accident or malfunction of

.safetygimportant' equipment.

The operation of Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) in accordance with the prop;osed chan3_e will not create the possibility of a new or differer!. kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

There are no physical changes to the plant or to the manner in which plant systems are operated involved in the proposed revision. The change modifies the working hours per shift for operating personnel without significantly changing the hours worked per week from the current TS requirements and retains the current limitations on excessive overtime. This change and the shift to the appropriate ANS Section for Station Qualified Reviewer qualifications are administrative in nature; therefore, no new or different accident is created.

The operation of Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) in accordance with the proposed change does not involve a pianificant reduction in_a_ margin of safety.

The Administrative controls TS sections for which these revisions are proposed have no Bases. described in the Technical Specifications. Plant operation with the proposed revision to shift working hours has been found to improve operator morale and performance. Citing of the more appropriate ANS 3.1 qualifications standard for Station Qualified Reviewers will more adequately ensure that all personnel performing review functions are properly qualified. Therefore, these proposed administrative changes will, if anything, enhance plant safety by

'their adoption.

Conclunion:

Dased upon the above, we have determined that this proposed change does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration.