ML20077R934

Tech Spec Change Request 201 to License DPR-16,revising Tech Specs to Accomodate Implementation of 21-month Operating Cycle w/3-month Outage

ML20077R934
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/19/1991
From:	J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20077R932	List: ML20077R924 ML20077R934 ML20077R936
References
NUDOCS 9108260237
Download: ML20077R934 (5)

Text

-. . _ - . . . _ ~ - - _ . - . - _ ~ . - ~ . - _ . - . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - . - . ~ , .

t

- . OPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION t OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION f i

Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 i

t Technical Specification l Change Roquest No. 201  !

Docket No. 50-219 l i

Applicant submits, by this Technical Specification Change Roquest No. 201 to f tha Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Statio's Technical Specifications, a  ;

change to page 4.2-1.  !

By b

k. J .j Darton ,

vi e President and Director  ;

gttrCreek l Sworn and Subscribed to before me this

[f day of 8"

, 1991.  ;

[ANotaryPublicofNJ _

/ .

G i AillffW K(310WE Nues,Ptellsof NewJessy j MyCommission tyires # <' C / 9 5, t

i t

P l

9108260237 9108  !

PDR--ADOCK 0500u{9 219 i P- -PDR

{

. . UNITED STATE 9 OF AMERIC.\

. NUCLEAR REGULATOkt COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-219 GPU Nuclear Corporation )

CERTIflfATE OF SFJY1f3 This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request No.

201 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, filed with the U. D. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion on August 19, 1991 has this day of August 19. 1991 , been served on the Mayor of Lacey Townrhip, Ocean County, New Jersey by deposit in the United Staten mail, addressed as follows:

The Honorable Debra Hadensky Mayor of Lacey Townchip 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731 /

J. J. L'a rton ce Pagthident and Director 0 - r creek I

i i

OYSTER CREEK MUCLEAR GENERAT8NG STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 DOCKET NO. 50-219 l TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 201 Applicant hornby requests the Commission to change Appendix A to the above captioned license as below, and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, an analysis concerning the determination of no significant hazards consideration is also presented  ;

1.0 SECTIONS TO BE CHANGED Technical Specification Sections 4.2.A, and 4.2.C.1. ,

I 2.0 EXTENT OF CHANGE Technical Specification Sections 4.2.A, and 4.2.C.1 are revised to delete restriction that the refueling outage interval is not to exceed 20 months. i 3.0 CHANGES REoqERIKQ  ;

The requested changes are shown on the attached Technical Specification Page 4.2-1.

4.0 DISCUSSION Technical Specification Section 4.2.A currently requires a control rod

-withdrawal test to demonstrete that the core can be made suboritical with a margir. of 0.25% k, at any time in the subsequent cycle. This test is specified to be performed following a refueling outage when core alterstions were performed, with a clarification that this criteria is not to exceed 20 months.

Technichi Specification Section 4.2.C.1' currently requires scram time testing of'all operable control rods with reactor pressure above 800

'poig. This test is specified to be performed after each major refueling outage and prior to resuming power operation, with a clarification that this interval is not to exceed 20 months.

As stated _in the current Technical Specification Section 3.2 and 4.2 Bases, the purpose of Technical-Specification Section 4.2.A is to verify adequate shutdown margin for reactivity control for the cubsequent operating cycle.- This test is performed following a refueling outage with the core-_in the cold, xenon-free condition, which; ensures that tho-criterion is satisfied for the entire subsequent fuel cycle. The purpose of Technical Specification Section 4.2.C.1-is to verify acceptable control rod scram insertion times for the subsequent operating cycles after-refueling prior to resuming operations. Review of seven (7) -

control' rod scram insertion timo tests from 1982 to present indicate test acceptance' criteria has been consistently satisfied. These results confirm that control rod scram insertion time does not significantly degrade with operating cycle length. Additionally, Technical Specification Section 4.2.D requires that each partially or fully-withdrawn control rod be exercised at least once each week. This surveillance serves an a periodic check against deterioration of the control rod system and provides additional assurance of control rod operability..

,,.,vi. yr-,-r--r-- , - - . - - r-._. .

vv , um1,w -, . _ e- m- , .. , # s.&--- > - ->- --tr-

9

. .The 20 month surveillance interval restriction for these tests is not relevant, since the purpose of these tests is to verify acceptable reactivity control parameters, following refueling activities for the subsequent operating cycle. Therefore, the proposed change to delete this restriction has no effect on the requirements for reactivity control.

5.0 DETERMINhilQH OPUN has determined that this Technical Specification Change Request involves no significant hazards c'nsideration ab defined by HRC in 10 CFR 60.92.

1.- Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment removes the 20 month interval restriction on surveillance performed following refueling activities which verify acceptable reactivity control for the subsequent operating cycle.

This change does not involve any change to the actual surveillance requirements, nor does it involve any change to the limits and restrictions on plant operations. The reliability of systems and components relied upcn to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated is not degraded. Assurance of adequate reactivity control for the subsequent operating cycle is maintained.

This change does not involve an) change to system or aquipment configuration. Therefore, this change does not incre 'e the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an tc dent previously evaluated.

2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment removes the 20 month interval restriction on surveillance performed following refueling activities which verify acceptable reactivity control for the subsequent operating cycle. This change does not involve any change to the actual surveillance requirements, nor does it involve any change to the limits and restrictions on plant operation, This change does not involve any change to system or equipment configuration. Assurance of adequate reactivity control for the subsequent operating cycle is maintained.

3. 03eration of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment wotid not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The progosed amendment removes.the 20 month interval restriction on surveillance performed following refueling activities which verify

.acce$ table reactivity control for the subsequent operating cycle.

This change does not involve any change to the actual surveillance requirements, nor does it involve any change to the limits and restrictions on plant operation. The reliability of systems and components is not degraded. Assurance of adequate reactivity control l for the subsequent operating cycle is maintained. Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

l l

l

m. _ _ - ____ _ _ .. _ _ _ . - - - - - ---

o . The proposed deletion of the 20 month interval restriction is not relevant to the purpose of the Technical specification survelliance. Implementation of the proposed amendment will maintain the required level of assurance of i adequate reactivity control for the rubsequent oporating cycle. Thus, I operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment l involves no significant hazards considerations. l l

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION '

l It in requested that the amendment authorizing this change become effectivo upon issuance. I i

i

[

i r

?

1 F

p r_g. y h, ..-s,. meg,a-,- , ,,y,m