ML20033C768
| ML20033C768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033C767 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112040137 | |
| Download: ML20033C768 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STAfES k
I y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\.....[
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF Q9 CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 57 T0' PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
~
' DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 24, 1981', as supported by letter dated November 23, 1981, Jersey Central Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed amendment would approve changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications to allow credit to be taken for an acoustical monitor on an adjacent valve to provide sufficient warning of an open safety valve whose primary or secondary position indicating instrumentation is inoperable. -
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The existing Technical Specification 3.13 requires that sufficient accident monitoring instrumentation is available during and following an accident.
The requirement for a reliable position indicating system for relief and safety valves was based on the need to provide the operator with a diagnostic capability to detect an open relief or safety valve.
The licensee presently has installed accoustical position monitors on each of the sixteen safety valves and each of the five relief valves, as well as thermocouple backup indicators on each valve.
The licensee has proposed a change to the Technical Specification that would allow credit to be taken for an acoustical monitor on an adjacent valve to provide sufficient warning of an open safety valve whose primary or secondary position indicating instrumentation is inoperable..
Ordinarily, valve monitoring systems (VMS) are set so that the. individual i
alarm will not initiate on blowdown of an adjacent valve. The alarm
~
.setpoint may be reduced such that the monitor will alarm if an adjacent l
valve is lifted tferendent on local background noise levels, and available system crosstalk. The current Technical Specifications require the plant to shutdown if any of the 21 VMS channels are inoperable. The proposed change would allow continued reactor operatio'n with a safety valve VMS channel. inoperative by using the adjacent valve VMS channel. On a General Electric plant, similiar in physical valve and VMS channel arrangement, the worst or maximum crosstalk to an adjacent valve 8112040137 8111254 PDR ADOCK 05000219)2 P
PDR.
l was 27 dB. This value was determined based on actual testing.of a similiar monitoring system installed in a similiar configuration. The minimum blowdown force considered was 30g with a maximum attenuation of 27 dB.
In actuality, a safety valve lift would result in a consider-ably larger blowdown force.
The licensee's November 23 and 24,1981 submittals provide supporting informatio,n regarding the c.apability of adjacent safety valve position monitors to detect opening of an adjacent valve.
Based.on the above discussion and the infnrmation provided by the licensee, we find that the proposed change to Technical Specification, Section 3.13, Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, is acceptable. However, we believe that all failed acoustical monitors should be made operable during the first cold shutdown following their failure. We discussed this matter with the licensee and we mutually agreed to modify the proposed change accordingly.
Based on our review, we conclude that the change to the Technical Specification meets our requirements and is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or tot ~al amounts nor an increase 1.n power level and will not result in any significant environmental inpact.
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 env'ironmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental ~ imp.act appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4
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 propos'ed 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..
Dated:
November 25, 1981 G
4