ML20034C007
| ML20034C007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C005 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005010300 | |
| Download: ML20034C007 (3) | |
Text
._
.r
[de*macg
~
o UNITED STATES f "
- e.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
5 WASHINotoN, D. C. 20666
\\ *'...+/
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION i
ptLATED TO A11ENDMENT NO. 138 TO PROV1510tlAL OPERATil1G LICENSE NO. DPR-16 I
l GPU f10 CLEAR COP.P0 RATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GEt'ERATING STATION DOCKET !!O. 50-219 4
1 INTRODUCTION Dy letter dated February 23, 1990, GPU Nuclear Corporation (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Oyster Creek t
Nuclear Generating Station.
The proposed change removes the provision of Specification 1.24 that linits the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval.
Guidance en this proposed change to TS was provided to ell power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 89-14 dated August 21, 1989.
EVALUATION i
Specification 1.24 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval. This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to L
permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval.
Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or maintenance activities. Specification 1.24 further limits the allowance for extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the i
specified time interval. The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to j
provide an overall increase in the surveillance interval.
Experience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accomodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle. However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3,25 limit on i
extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances.
9005010300 900423 i
PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
2 J
l 2
Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a i
practical ifmit on the use of the 25 percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist or when sefety systems are out of service for i
maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25 percent allowance to extend a surveillance. Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25 percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 1.24 should be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidance provided in Generic Letter 8914 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
i 1.24 Each Surveillarce Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to l
exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval, t
in addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change and noted that it is not the intent of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational
~
convenience to extend surveillance beyond that specified.
r The licensee has proposed changes to Specification _1.24 that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89 14, as noted above.- On the basis of its review of this matter, the staff finds that the above changes to the TS for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station are acceptable.
4 ENVIPONMDITAL CONSIDERATION This amendment changes surveillance requirements.
We have determined that the amendment involves no significar,t increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents.that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The staff has previously issued a-proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards censideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental cssessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
+
my
.w w
^^urs"'
. CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will net be lnimical to the common defense and security nor.to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 23, 1990 Principal Contributor: Thomas G. Dunning
_ _ - - -. _ _ - - - - - - -