ML20081G971
| ML20081G971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081G968 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503240040 | |
| Download: ML20081G971 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _.
O e*
9 s>RREGu
[
UNITED STATES l,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o'
s WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4 001
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 178 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND l
B_SEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l
DOCKET NO. 50-219 l
}
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 22, 1994, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN), the licensee for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), requested a Technical Specification (TS) change. This request proposes changes to Section 1.6, 3.2.A, 3.9.f.5, and 4.2.A which specify the Shutdown Margin (SDM) requirements 3
that ensure the reactor can be made suberitical to preclude inadvertent criticality in any core condition. This request also includes a definition of Shutdown Margin, Section 1.45.
Administrative changes to TS Sections 1.7 and 3.2.b.2(b) are also included to simplify definitions and eliminate unnecessary notes and references.
2.0 EVALUATION j
The requested changes clarify the requirements for demonstrating SDM, incorporate new, more restrictive SDM limits, and identify required Limiting 4
i Condition for Operation (LCO) actions if the SDM is not met in each operation j
mode. These actions were not identified in the current TSs. The surveillance requirements are also revised to identify conditions under which the SDM must be verified. The revised SDM limits account for the uncertainty in demonstration of adequate margin analytically (0.38% delta-k) or by measurement (0.28% delta k).
Since the revised limits are also more restrictive than the current value of 0.25% delta-k, this is acceptable. The staff finds the above TS change request is acceptable with respect to SDM limits.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
l 9503240040 950321 PDR ADOCK O 9
P
g,, 0 9
. l l
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 4
Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined I
that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no l
significant changa in the types, of any effluents that may be released j
offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards l
consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR l
37072). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for i
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
1 The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, l
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common I
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
E. D. Kendrick Date:
March 21, 1995 i
l t
l l
1 l
l