ML19341D061
| ML19341D061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D056 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103040784 | |
| Download: ML19341D061 (2) | |
Text
..
A 8[
o UNITED STATES g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4***.*gb 1
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAk REACTOR REGULATION FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 52 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-16 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 6,1980, Jersey Central Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. This amendment would provide a change in procedures for testing for radio-active methyl iodine removal efficiency of carbon samples removed from the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS). This change would be consistent with ASTM D 3803-79 instead of ANSI N510-1975 as is specified in the existing Technical Specifications.
In addition, the amendment would eliminate the air-flow distribution tests on the j
high efficiency particulate (HEPA) and charcoal filters of the SGTS.
By letter dated October 18, 1977, the licensee also requested a correction to the Bases of Technical Specificatior 4.5.
This correction would clarify the Bases Section so that it would be consistent with the intent of the Technical Specification provision which requires reactor building inleakage testing prior to refueling, and charcoal efficiency and performance testing at 18-month intervals.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Oyster Creek Technical Specification 4.5.K.l.a(2) requires that laboratory analysis be performed on carbon samples removed from the SGTS in accordance J
with ANSI N510-1975 (at 130 C, 95% relative humidity) to determine the system's radioactive methyl iodine removal efficiency. The licensee has proposed to use ASTM D3803-79, "Radiciodine Testing of Nuclear Grade Gas Phase Adsorbents,"
for determining the systems radioactive methyl iodine removal efficiency.
ASTM D3803-79 has been endorsed by latest revisions of ANSI N509-1980 and ANSI N510-1980 for determining the systems iodine removal efficiency.
These 4
ANSI Standards have been found acceptable by the NRC staff.
The change in the Technical Specification will allow the licensee to perform the test at 30 C with 95% relative humidity. Based on the above reason, we 1
conclude that the proposed change in Technical Specification 4.5 K.l.a(2) is i
acceptable.
i 81030 4o784
2 Present Technical Specification 4.5 K.l.a(3) requires that an air-flow distribution test be performed at least once every 18 months on the HEPA and charcoal filters of SGTS. The SGTS has a designed air-flow rate of about 1200 cfm. The filters used'in this system are small units with one H6PA filter which should ensure uniform flow distribution.
The air-flow distribution test requirement is not warranted for these small units.
Based on our evaluation of SGTS filters, we conclude that the proposed deletion of the air-flow distribution test requirement in Section 4.5.K.l.a(3) is acceptable.
By letter dated October 18, 1977, the licensee proposed a correction to the bases of Specification 4.5 of the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications.
In Speci fication 4.5.K. the surveillance period for the charcoal filters in the SGTS is stated as at least once per 18 months.
However, in the Bases Section of Specification 4.5, the charcoal filter test requirements appear to be combined with the reactor building inleakage test required prior to refueling. The proposed change to the Bases Section of Specifi-cation 4.5 will clarify this section so that it is consistent with the intent of Specification 4.5 to require reactor building inleakage testing prior to refueling and charcoal filter efficiency and performance testing at 18-month intervals. Based on this, we find the proposed change acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
~~
~~~
We have determined that the amendmelt does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts rior an increase in power level and will not remJ1t in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, ae have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificang 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 impact 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) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease 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.
4 Date.
February 11, 1981 l
l
-_