ML20125B440
| ML20125B440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125B421 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506110410 | |
| Download: ML20125B440 (3) | |
Text
.
p urg jo,,
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5
-)
wAsmwoTow. o. c.20ses
\\...../
. SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORT!NG AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated May 1 and 25, 1984, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN)
(the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for.the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS).
This amendment would authorize changes to the Appendix B Technical Specifications (TS) to reflect the change in the location for three marine woodborer exposure panels and for revisions to the procedure for calibration of environmental monitoring instrumentation. These changes-would be to Section 3.0, Special Monitoring and Study Activities.
Woodborer Monitoring Program, of Appendix B of the Oyster Creek TS.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for
-Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 1985, (50 FR 7987). No public coments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 DISCUSSION'AND EVALUATION 1
2.1 Woodborer Exposure Panels The licensee proposes to relocate the woodborer exposure panels at three i
sampling sites due to vandalism. The three sites are: Site No. 8 in Oyster Creek; Site No. 9 in Forked River; and Site No. 16 in Barnegat
[
Bay. This proposal would amend Table 3.1, Exposure Panel Arrays, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, of the Appendix B TS by changing the site location of panels 8, 9 and 16 in this table. A review of documents related to the licensee's woodborer study program revealed that these exposure panel-relocations already have been made as follows:
In November 1983, the panels at Site numbers 8 and 9 were relocated to the positions described in Attachment I to the May 1, 1984 TS change request.
j.
8506110410 850530 DR ADOCK 05000219 l
p i
PDR b
b II In December 1981, the original location of Site 16 was changed and relabeled as "16A."
That location was modified in June 1982 and labeled as "16B."
Site No.168 is that which is described in Attachment I to the May 1, 1984 TS change request.
These changes. therefore, are changes in the wording of the Appendix B of'the 1
'TS since the exposure panels have been. relocated to the sites described in the request.
The Oyster Creek TS require the licensee to report changes in procedures to NRC only if a change would result in significant environmental impact, or if it involves a previously unreviewed environmental matter.
The changes in exposure panels already made and the request for TS wording changes do not appear to involve either of these two criteria and the TS (i.e., foot-note "*" to Table 3-1) allows the licensee to change the location of the exposure panels to protect the panels against vandalism. Therefore, these chanoes are permissible under the TS and acceptable to the staff.
The staff examined the results of several studies of the woodborer problem and compared the observed-impacts aaainst those projected in the 1974
. Final Environmental Statement (FES). The staff concluded that while localized effects have occurred (and have been mitigated to a large degree), wide-spread woodborer impact has not occurred as a result of Oyster Creek operation. The changes in exposure panel locations do not appear to have jeopardized the study program objectives and, therefore, are acceptable.
4 2.2 Water Quality Study The licensee also proposes to change the requirement in Section 3.1.4 for instrument calibration from each day the instrument is used _during the monthly sampling program to quarterly for water salinity, water temperature and dissolved oxygen. GPUN has justified the proposed change on the grounds that the use to which the data are put does not demand the degree of accuracy which the existing frequent calibration would ensure. The licensee would check the perfonnance of all measuring devices prior to use. The staff concurs that the cost of daily calibration is not justified by the program objective and the change can be made without reducing the value of the data. -The added description in the TS of the method of each calibration is acceptable to the staff.
The proposed change to reduce the frequency of instrument calibration will not be authorized at this time. This is because the application for this change also included other proposed changes to Section 3.1.4 which were not addressed in the May I and 25, 1984, submittals from the Itcensee. These submittals did not address and did not provide a basis for the following
[
changes which were in the proposed rewording of Section 3.1.4: (1) changing water temperature to temperature, (2) changing the frequency of calibration of pH measurement instruments from daily before each use to daily and.(3) deleting the requirement that the water quality measurements are made monthly.
4 4
- ~ - -.. _,.
. ~.
. In a phone conference, the licensee stated that these changes were not intended to be prepared in its application of May 1 and 25,1984. However, the staff will not authorize a change to Section 3.1.4 of the TS until the licensee has proposed acceptable wording for the section.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment relates to changes to a license for a reactor pursuant to Part 50 which changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by C. Hickey, Jr. and J. Donohew, Jr.
Dated: May 30, 1985.
.--.