ML19257D643
| ML19257D643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257D640 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002050231 | |
| Download: ML19257D643 (2) | |
Text
an.
\\
UNITED STATES f}
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
., b,,. ) ', "
- i. ASHINGTON. O C 20535 7s_.9, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.a4T0 PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-16 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET N0. 50-219 1.0 Introduction By letter dated November 16, 1979, Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L)
(the licensee) requested changes to Appendix A, Technical Specifications, of Pro-visional Operating License No. DPR-16. Generally, these changes would renove unnecessary operability and surveillance requirements.
2.0 Evaluation Definitions of Shutdown Condition, Cold Shutdown and Refuel Mode are being modified to reflect that they are applicable only when there is fuel in the reactcr vessel. These definitions are used to define when various plant systems, equipment and instrumentation are required to be operable in order to assure that the plant is maintained in a safe condition. With the core unloaded, no equipment associated with reactor safety is required. The licensee is developing the administrative procedures to assure that the core is fully unloaded upon comoletion of defueling. These procedures will be available for review by Inspection and Er.forcement prior to unloading. We find the proposed modifications to the definitions acceptable.
Protective instrumentation requirements are being ravised to delete or otherwise modify the operability requirements of various int
- inentation in the shutdown, refuel and startup modes. A detailed description,
- he changes is contained in the licensee's submittal.
Our review of these ch ages reveal that these protective instrumentation functions do not provide any useful orotection with the reactor in the specific coerational modes.
These functions generally pro-vide protection when the reactor is pressurized and at oower conditions.
The exceptions to these protective functions are the SRM and building radiation i n s trumenta t ion. Changes to all these instrumentation specifications are to clarify operability reauirements and are consistent with the instrumentation functions. On this basis the crocosed nodifications are accentable.
The licensee has also proposed to allow the pressure relief functicn of the electronatic relief valves to be inoperable or bypassed (the ADS function of the valves would be maintained) during the system hydrostatic pressure test required by AMSE Code Section XI,15-500 at or near the end of each ten year insoection interval. This allowance is necessary since the hydrostatic test pressure is above the setpoint of the relief valves.
1871 327 8002050 2.3/
Even though the pressure relief function of the electromatic relief valves is bypassed, over pressure protection would continue to be provided by the 16 safety valves.
Elimination of this relief function does not affect the reactor safety analyses, since credit was not taken for the relief function. Therefore, we find the modification acceptable.
In addition, the licensee has propcsed to correct several typographical errors and to clarify several sections of the Technical Specifications. We have re-viewed these changes and find them acceptable.
Finally, we and the licensee have agreed to corrections and clarifications in addition to those proposed in the licensee's submittal. The most significant of these changes on page 3.1-12a is to clarify that core spray system operability requirements are for a complete single logic train, so that at least one train of the core spray system is available at required conditions. The first 1 1/2 paragraohs were repeated on page 3.1-6a and two words were misspelled on page 3.1-12a.
These administrative errors were corrected. On this basis, we find the proposed modification acceptable.
- 3. 0 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the arnendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is ingignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental imoact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 Conclusion
~
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)be-cause the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decnase in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: January 4,1980 1871 328