ML20136H679
| ML20136H679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136H669 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511250174 | |
| Download: ML20136H679 (2) | |
Text
.
l.
[
.c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y b
j wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555 5
%,,.....,e 1
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 92 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16
~
GPU NUCLEAP CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER'& LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 22, 1985, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). This amendment would authorize achangetotheAppendixATechnicelSpecifications(TS)whichisanew requirement pertaining to limiting overtime of station personnel. This change is to Section 6.2, Organization, Administrative Controls, of the TSs.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the reauested action was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 1985 (50 FP 34941).
No public coments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In November 1980, the staff issued NUREG-0/37, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," which included all TMI Action Plan items approved by the Commission for implementation at operating nuclear power reactors. NUREG-0737 identified items for which TS were scheduled for implementation by December 1981. The staff provided guidance on the scope of the TS which the staff would find acceptable for some of these items in Generic Letter (GL) No. 83-02, NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications. This GL was issued to all Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) licensees on January 10, 1983.
In this GL, the staff requested the licensees to:
1.
Review their facility's TS to determine if they are consistent with the guidance provided in the GL, and 2.
Submit an application for a license amendment where deviations or absence of TS were found.
One of the items identified in GL 83-02 was Limit Overtime, NUREG-0737 Item I.A.1.3.
By letter dated September 22, 1983, GPUNuclear(thelicensee) submitted its response for Oyster Greek to GL 83-02 and NUREG-0737 Item I.A.1.3 0511250174 851119 DR ADOCK 0500 9
I,
and stated that requirements consistent with the Commission's policy statement guidelines on station operating personnel overtime in GL 82-12 dated June 15, 1982, have been incorporated in the station administrative procedures. The licensee also stated that it was inappropriate, as requested by the staff in GL 83-02, 82-12, and 82-02 to incorporate these requirements in the administrative section of the station TS because of the contingencies inherently necessary to cover all possible circumstances involving personnel overtime.
~
In its letter dated May 30, 1985, the staff evaluated the licensee's justification for not incorporating guidelines on station operating personnel overtime in the TS and concluded that the justification did not meet the staff's interpretation of the Comission's policy in this area. The licensee was requested to' propose changes to the administrative section of the TS to require procedures that follow the policy statement guidelines. An acceptable specificaticn was "the amount of overtime worked by plant staff members performing safety-related functions must be limited in accordance with the NRC Policy Statement on working hours (Generic Letter No. 82-12) " or following the model TS in GL 83-02.
By letter dated July 22, 1985, the licensee has proposed a change to the TS pertaining to limiting overtime of station personnel. This change is to Section 6.2, Organization, Administrative Controls, of the TS.
The proposed TS is consistent with the guidance on limiting overtime of statien personnel in GL 83-02. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed TS is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONVENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment relates to changes in administrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). 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 comon defense and security or to the health and l
safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by J. Denchew.
Dated: November 19,1985 l
.