ML20080K068

Forwards Addl Info Re Tech Spec Change Request 108 Re Rev to 10CFR50.91,significant Hazards Analysis in Response to Telcon

ML20080K068
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	02/08/1984
From:	Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8402150285
Download: ML20080K068 (3)

Text

o GPU Nuclear Corporation ye 100 Interpace Parkway w

u Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

F'ebruary 8,1984 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing U.S. I;uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Technical Specfication Change Request flo.108 This letter transmits the information requested by members of your staff during recent telephone conversations with Mr. James Knubel of my staff regarding a revision to 10CFR50.91, significant hazards analysis, of the subject Technical Specification Change Request.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please call Mr. James Knubel at (201) 299-2264.

Very truly yours, t

I

^

V

.B.

iedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek 1r/0127e cc: Administrator Mayor of Lacey Township Region I 818 W. Lacey Road U.S. Nuclear Reguiatory Commission Forked River, N.J.

08731 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa.

19406 NRC Resident Inspector Mr. Frank Cosolito Oyster Creek fluclear Generating Station Acting Chief Forked River, N. J.

08731 Bureau of Radhtien Protection l

Dept. of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, N.J.

08628 h

0 P

'l GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubhc Utilities Corporation

e

s. -

~

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 DOCKET N0. 50-219 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 108 Pursuant to 10CFR50.91, an analysis concerning significant hazards considerations is provided below:

1.

_Section to be changed:

3.1 Bases and Table 3.1.1 2.

Extent of changes:

a. Section 3.1 Protective Instrumentation The bases are being revised to reflect the increase in the high drywell pressure trip setpoint from 2.0 psig to 2.4 psig.

b. Table 3.1.1 Protective Instrumentation Requirements The table is being revised to reflect the increase in the high drywell pressure trip setpoint as it relates to the plant protection functions.

3.

Discussion:

Section 3.1 and Table 3.1.1 cites the requirements for the plant protective instrumentation. The purpose of this Technical Specification Change Request is to revise this section and table to reflect an increase in the high drywell pressure trip setpoint from 2.0 psig to 2.4 psig.

4.

Determination:

We have determined that although the proposed amendment involves a slight increase in the establishea trip setting which initiates automatic i

protective actions, it does not involve a change of any of the limiting safety system settings listed in Section 2.3 of the Technical Specifications. This change will increase the separation between the containment operating pressure and the pressure trip setpoint. This t

reduces the likelihood of spurious trips and will insure that only valid signals will challenge the trip system. However, the setpoint is still low enough that the trips initiated by the affected instruments will occur in time to ensure that they will perform their protective function.

l l

l l

~.. >

Therefore, this change is found to involve no significant hazards considerations because although this change may slightly reduce in some way a safety margin, the results of this change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan. This change results from the application of a refinement of a previously used calculation model or design method.

In addition, the decrease in the likelihood of spurious trips will significantly reduce the possibility of plant disruptions or transients which lead to more significant events.

Based on the above, operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in accordance with Technical Specification Change Request No. 108 would not:

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or conseauences 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.