ML20138E550
| ML20138E550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138E547 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510250050 | |
| Download: ML20138E550 (4) | |
Text
..
J
!{
'o,[
+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
[
h WASH NGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 90 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
'l q
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION i
DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 11, 1985, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (0ysterCreek). This amendment would replace certain existing detailed Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) requirements in Section 4.3, Reactor Coolant, of the TS with references to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, the details of which are implemented by the licensee's ISI and IST Programs for Oyster Creek.
The letter dated February 11, 1985, asked further revisions to the ISI and IST requirements consistent with the amendment request dated June 8, 1984, l
which requested incorporation of the requirements of the Commission's revised l
regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a on ISI and IST in the plant TS and delete a required inspection schedule from the TS which is also contained in the i
station ISI Program. The June 8, 1984, request was approved by the staff l
in Amendment Number 82 dated May 22, 1985, i
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed
{
No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for j
Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12145). No public comments or requests
,l for hearing were received.
l 2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 1
Discussion and Evaluation l
On February 27, 1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission revised the inservice inspection and testing requirements for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components
]
fcr nuclear power plants in 10 CFR 50.55a. The revised regulations require l
inservice inspection and testing set forth in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and J
Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda. A review by the Commission of the 1974 edition ASME Section XI indicated that conflicts may occur between the ASME code requirements and the plant TS. To avoid such conflicts, the Commission j
requested that the licensee, in accordance with 50.55a(g)(5)(ii), apply for an amendment to the plant TS to replace such conflicting TS with a reference to j
0510250050 051010 i
PDR ADOCM 03000219 i
P PDR l
I. The licensee proposed by an amendment request dated June 8,1984 to incorporate the requirements of the revised regulations on ISI and IST in the plant TS.
The license amendment was granted, and the date of its issuance was May 22, 1985.
The licersee proposed by an arendment request dated February 11, 1985, to further revise its ISI and IST requirements.
In this amendment request, the text is revised to refer to 10 CFR 50.55a and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI for specific details.
The staff has reviewed the February 11, 1985 changes proposed by the licersee.
The proposed changes revise TS 4.3.0 and 4.3.E to incorporate requirements of the revised 10 CFR 50.55a and to avoid conflicts between the ASME Section XI requirements and the plant TS. The proposed change in 4.3.D inserts a refer-ence to the appropriate Section XI, Article 5000. The proposed change in 4.3.E replaces text detailing requirements for the minimum number of valves to be bench checked or replaced with the equivalent, with an explicit reference to subsection IWV-3510 of Section XI.
These additional TS changes are consistent with tha guidance provided by the staff to the licensee in the letter dated April P6, 1976.
Therefore, based on the above, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to Section 4.3 of the Appendix A TS in the licensee's letter dated February 11, 1985, are acceptable.
3.0 _E? VIP 0NPENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the irstallation or use of facility components located within the restric+cd area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendrent involves no significart increase in the anounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and tFat there is no significent ircrease in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that this arendrent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding. Accordirgly, this amendrent rents the elioihility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFP 51.2P(b) no environnental inpact staterent or environnental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuarce of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staf' has cencluded, based on tha considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and sefety of the public vill rot be endancered by oporation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will ha conducted in compliance with the Commission's requietiens and tha issuance of this anendment will not be inimical to the conron defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT l
This evaluation was prepared by S. P. Vucharski, Peqion 1.
t Dated: October 18, 1985
no nego,
o UNITED STATES I
,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHING TON, L. C. 20555
\\...../
i j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY j
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 11, 1985, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an i
amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (0ysterCreek). This amendment would replace certain existing detailed Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) requirements in Section 4.3, Reactor Coolant, of the TS with references to Section XI of i
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, the details of which are implemented by the. licensee's ISI and IST Programs for Oyster Creek.
i I
i The letter dated February 11, 1985, asked further revisions to the ISI and IST requirements consistent with the amendment request dated June 8, 1984, which requested incorporation of the requirements of the Comission's revised regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a on ISI and IST in the plant TS and delete a required inspection schedule from the TS which is also contained in the l
station ISI Program. The June 8,1984, request was approved by the staff in Amendment Number 82 dated May 22, 1985.
l l
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed l
No Significant Hazards' Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12145). No public coments or requests l
for hearing were received.
4 1
2.0 OISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Discussion and Evaluation i
On February 27, 1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission revised the inservice i
inspection and testing requirements for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components i
for nuclear power plants in 10 CFR 50.55a. The revised regulations require inservice inspection and testing set forth in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and i
Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda. A review by the Commission of the 1974 edition ASME Section XI indicated that conflicts may occur between the ASME code requirements and the plant TS. To avoid such conflicts, the Commission requested that the licensee, in accordance with 50.55a(g)(5)(ii), apply for an amendment to the plant TS to replace such conflicting TS with a reference to l
l f
t
}
L.-.
2
. i The licensee proposed by an amendment request dated June 8,1984 to incorporate the requirements of the revised regulations on ISI and IST in the plant TS.
The license amendment was granted, and the date of its issuance was May 22, 1985 The licensee preposed by an anendment request dated February 11, 1985, to further revise its ISI and IST requirements.
In this amendment request, the text is revised to refer to 10 CFR 50.55a and the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code,Section XI for specific details.
The staff has reviewed tha February 11, 1985 changes proposed by the licensee.
The proposed changes revise TS 4.3.D and 4.3.E to incorporate requirements of the revised 10 CFR 50.55a and to avoid conflicts between the ASME Section XI reouirements and the plant TS. The proposed change in 4.3.0 inserts a refer-ence to the appropriate Section XI, Article 5000. The proposed change in 4.3.E replaces text detailing requirements for the minimum number of valves to be bench checked or replaced with the equivalent, with an explicit reference to subsection IWV-3510 of Section XI. These additional TS changes are consistent with tha guidance provided by the staff to the licensee in the letter dated April ?6, 1976. Therefore, based on the above, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to Section 4.3 of the Appendix A TS in the licensee's letter dated February 11, 1985, are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIPONFENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the irstallation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. 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 ircrease in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Conmission has previously issued a proposed finding that this trendrent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such findino. Accordirgly, this amendrent reets the eliQibility criteria for Categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.2P(b) no environnental inocct staterent or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuarce of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staf' has cencluded, based on tha considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public vill rot be endancered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conrnission's reguletiens and tha issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKN0_WL,EDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by S. P. Vocharski, Penion I.
Dated: October 18, 1985