ML20027D357
| ML20027D357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1982 |
| From: | Lombardo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027D348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211040192 | |
| Download: ML20027D357 (2) | |
Text
d"%
- cp h
UNITED STATES 9
E q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$.,$l$,9[.
di 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,, 4 d a/ J
- g *... '.f' SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT N0. 64 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET N0. 50-219
~J '"
s
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 22, 1980 GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU) and Jersey Central Power & Light Company (the licensees) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
This amendment would authorize changes to the Appendix A Technical Specifications, which would clarify the term "0PERABLE" as it applies to support system outages or multiple outages of redundant components.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In response to the NRC Generic Letter, dated April 10, 1980 GPU proposed changes to the Technical Specifications Sections 1.1, definition of Operable and 3.0 Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO).
The single failure criterion is maintained by specifying LCOs,that require all redundant components of safety-related systems to be operable. When the required redundancy is not met, action within a specified time is necessary to change the operational mode of the plant to place it in a safe condition.
The acceptance criteria for the LCO requires that the plant b'e in cold shutdown within the time specified if redundant safety systems or their components be-come inoperable either due to failures in redundant systems or the diesel generators.
This requirement has been incorporated to assure that equipment outages would not be allowed to persist that would result in the facility being in an unprotected condition.
Based on our evaluation the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications, Sections 1.1 and 3.0 are in accordance with the Standard Technical Specification requirements and are acceptable.
8211040192 821028 POR ADOCK 05000219 P
PDR I
2_
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment 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 insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental. impact statement or negative declaration and environ-
~ ' ~ ~
mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with t'he 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 in-crease in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possiblity of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, 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.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation has been prepared by J. Lombardo.
Date: October 28, 1982 l
D
-