ML20128J000
| ML20128J000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128H992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507100343 | |
| Download: ML20128J000 (3) | |
Text
o, UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS3!0N o
s I
waswiwarou. o. c. 20sss g.,.....f x
SArETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY OYSTEP CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 21, 1985, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. OPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). This amendment to the OCNGS Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) authorizes changes to limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements in Sections 3.5 and 4.5 of the TS, Containment. These changes correct a typocraphical error in TS 3.5.A.4.c and TS 3.5.A.S.a. delete TS 3.5.A.9 and TS Figure 3.5-1, revise the Bases for Section 3.5 of the TS and delete TS 4.5.P.S.
The deletion of TS 3.5.A 9, 4.5.P.5 and Figure 3.5-1 delete the requirements on the drywell-suppression chamber differential pressure in the TS.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Detennination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Pegister on May 21, 1985, (50 FR 20980). No public connents or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In the staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January 13, 1984, the staff completed its post-implementation audit review of the Oyster Creek Plant Unique Analyses Report (PUAR) for the Mark I containment Long Term Program.
The staff concluded in its SE that the Oyster Creek containment modifications made by the licensee were acceptable to the staff and that the PUAR verifies that these modifications have restored the original design safety rargin to the Mark I contairrent at the Oyster Creek plant. This SE completed the staff's review of this issue.
8507100343 850701 PDR ADocM 05000219 P
. In its letter dated January 13, 1985, the sta#f requested that the licensee submit any TS changes recuired as a result of the Mark I containment modifications.
Ry its letter dated March 21, 1985, the licensee has proposed changes to the tinitino conditions for operation and surveillance requirements that were originally incorporated in the TS as part of the Mark I Short Term Progrer in crder to ensure the containment integrity under hydrodynamic load conditions.
In its letter, the licensee requested that the requiremert for neintaining a drywell to suppression chamber differential pressure be deleted from the TS. This requested change is consistent with the analyses presented in the PUAP.
The staff had previously reviewed the aralyses presented in the PUAR and concluded that the containment modifications made to the OCf GS had restored the original design margin without the use of differential pressure operation.
Therefore, the staff concludes the proposed changes to delete TS 3.5.A.9, 4.5.P.5 and Table 3.5-1 and revise the Bases of Section 3.5 by adding two references to the Oyster Creek Mark I Containment Long Term Program and deleting the section and references to the Mark I Containment Short Term Program are acceptable.
In its letter dated March 21, 1985, the licensee also proposed to correct tve typographical errors in TS section 3.5.
These changes are to II) change "3.5. A.3.a" to "3.5.A.4.a" in TS 3.5.A.4.c and (2) change "3.5.A.4.b" to "3.5.A.5.b" in TS 3.5.A.S.a.
These are on pace 3.5-2 of the TS. The staff has reviewed these proposed changes and agrees with the licensee that the references to 3.5.A.3.a and 3.5.A.d.h. in TS 3.5.A 4.e erd 3.5.A.S.a. respectively, are in error and the references should be to 3.5.A.4.a and 3.5.A.S.b, respectively. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involve chancas to recuirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFD Part ?0 and chances to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the ancurts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be releesed offsite and that there is no significant increase in individuel er runulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves nn sinrificant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such findino. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criterie for categnrical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(o).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.??Ib) no environmental impact statement or environrertel assessment nead be prepared in connection with a
the issuanca nf 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 renner; 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 connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by F. Eltawila.
Dated: July 1, 1985 A