ML20137J773
| ML20137J773 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J768 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601230206 | |
| Download: ML20137J773 (3) | |
Text
- f
%,1 UNITED STATES 0"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j wAsmNGTON, D. C 20555 e
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 98 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 letter dated June 19, 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 changes to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) which are new requirements pertaining to the Post Accident Sampling System. These changes are to Section 6, Administrative Controls.
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 August 28, 1985 (50 FR 34941).
No public comments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In November 1980, the staff issued NUR G-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements", which inclused 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. 83-36, NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications. This GL was issued to all boiling water reactor (BWR) licensees on November 1, 1983.
In this GL, the staff requested the licensees to:
1, Review their facility's **3 to determine if they are consistent with the guidance provid#d in the GL, and a
2.
Submit an application for a license amendment where deviations or absence of TS were found.
8601230206 e6 g h PDR ADOCK O PDR P
. One of the items identified in GL 83-36 was the Post-Accident Sampling System (PASS), NUREG-0737 Item II.B.3.
The guidance in GL 83-36 stated that an administrative program should be established, implemented and maintained to ensure the plant has the capability to obtain and analyze reactor coolant and containment atmosphere samples under accident conditions.
The program should include:
a training of personnel b
procedures for sampling and analysis, and c
provisions for maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment.
By letter dated June 19, 1985, the licensee proposed changes to the TS pertaining to the PASS. These requested changes are to Section 6, Administrative Controls.
The proposed changes are to incorporate the guidance given in GL 83-36 into the TS.
The proposed TS are consistent with the guidance on the PASS given in GL 83-36. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed TS are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the emendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released i
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 I
prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
l
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 i
safety of the public.
l l
l
. 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by J. Dor:ohew.
Dated:
January 14, 1986.
I I
i