ML20080B390

Forwards Addl Supporting Info to Tech Spec Change Request 103.Spec 3.5.B.1.1 States Action to Be Take When Secondary Containment Integrity Not Maintained

ML20080B390
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	02/01/1984
From:	Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8402070120
Download: ML20080B390 (3)

Text

,

GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear

:;388 Forked River,New Jersey 08731-0388 609 971 4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

February 1, 1984 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Technical Specification Change Request No. 103 In response to conversations with your staff concerning our original request of July 18, 1983 and the requirements of 10CFR50.91, GPU Nuclear is providing additional supporting information. Our response relative to the 10CFR50.91 requirements has been modified to accommodate your needs.

Pursuant to 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a copy of this Technical Specification Change Request has been sent to the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. J. Knubel at (201) 299-2264.

Very truly yours, 1

[bc k)

Peter B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF/ dam cc: Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Mp [

Forked River, NJ 08731 m

II B402070120 840201 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P

PDR Y

/

GPU Nuclear Cciporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Co poration

p-O:

a

[

_g; J'

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENCE N0. DPR-16 R

i&

DOCKET NO. 50-219

-. /

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 103 3

s

$ {S - h Pursuant to 10CFR50.91, an analysis concerning significant hazards b

considerations is provided below:-

y l.

Section to be changed:

Section'3.5.B 2I ' Extent of change:

_ Provide specification 3.5.B.1.1 which states action to be taken when s secondary containment integrity is not maintained. Also, specification N 3.5.B.l.d has been modified in order to clarify its intent.

o, 3;y Discussion:

7 The-existing specifications'do not address what actions are to be taken upon the loss of. secondary containment integrity. The present.

X Y specifications only address the loss of the Standby Gas Treatment b System. The Plant Operations Review Committee has requested a revision 4 -

to the action statement in-specification 3.5.B to include the failure to meet the require.unts of specification 3.5.B.1.

The Plant Operations S ' M",.

Review Committee has determined that such a statement would eliminate any ambiguity with respect.to the interpretation of actions to be taken upon a loss of secondary containment integrity.- The inclusion of actions to W

mitigate the loss of secondary containment will enhance the safety of the plant.-

^

Specification 3.5.B.1.d is a condition that must be fulfilled in order that secondary containment need not be maintained. Clarifying the intent

-W.'of this specification better. defines its acceptable limits thereby

-ensuring the protection of the health ar.d safety of the public.

E'xample of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations were provided in the Federal Register on April 6, 1983 (48 FR 14870). The above proposed changes to the u

c*

_ specifications are within the provisions of example (ii) (of 48 FR 14870

' referenced above) in that additional controls will be included in the m.

existing specifications. The additional controls on operation and

_ ' maintenance give' assurance that the probability of inadvertent releases

,P' l

/

of radioactive material will be minimized.

g

g J

a

,e N es

-w

-w

- + - -

-,,.a

-,--wa,-ry,-,

,,,m

--,-,n--

-n

-m.

-r-

, - - ~,, -,,

-~y,-,-

4

,o 4.

Determination:

We have determined that the subject change request involves no significant-hazards in that operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in accordance with Technical Specification Change Request No. 103 would not:

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

3

-