ML20196K327
| ML20196K327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196K315 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807060575 | |
| Download: ML20196K327 (3) | |
Text
_
i
>1Kf0p o
UNITED STATES
~,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED T,0 AMENDMENT NO.123 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-16 GPU NilCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK' NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219 INTRODUCTION By letters dated April ?9, 1988, and May 11. 1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN or the licensee) requested an Amendment to the Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (0yster CreekorOCNGS).
The proposed changes 'iffect Technical Specification pages 3.13-1 and 3.13-2.
Specifically, the revised change would add a note associated with Specifications 3.13.B.2 and 3.13.B.3.
The note would permit a one time change, for current operating Cycle 11 only, which allows continued power operation if both of the primary and backup safety valve position indicators become inoperable on no more than two safety valves.
In addition, the requirement to reduce the setpoint of the acoustic monitor on an adjacent safety valve would be changed so that it compensates for the inoperability of an acoustic monitor only. The note would also state that the 7 day action statement in Specification 3.13.B.3 would comence should both primary and backup devices on a third safety valve become inoperable.
Administrative changes to capitalize the Technical Specification definitions where used in specifications in Sections 3.13.A. 3.13.8 and 3.13.C are also proposed. There are no changes to safety valve position indicator surveillance requirements associated with this proposal.
EVALUATION With regard to the above proposed amendment, the licensee has stated that these changes would still ensure that position indication coverage is retained for all safety valves. This would be accomplished by a combination of operable acoustic monitors and reduced setpoints on adjacent valves' acoustic monitors, 8807060575 88062e DR ADOCK 05 g9
i
' )
In the proposal the licensee also indicates that in the symptom-based emergency operating procedures implemented at Oyster Creek, the operators response is governed by changes in plant parameters (symptoms) and not by what caused those parameters to change. Consequently, operator response to a stuck open safety valve is not affected or dependent on the operability of the valve acoustic monitors or thermocouples. Thus, operability of the safety valve position indication is not necessary for transient or accident
}
mitigation.
The staff has considered the licensee's statements and has also noted the fallowing.
1.
It is expected that leakage occurring prior to both primary and backup monitor failure would be detected.
2.
The proposed Technical Specification continues to specify ccmpensating adjustments in acoustic monitors when primary monitors fail.
3.
The most likely initiator of safety valve leakage is challenge to the valves - spontaneous leakage is considered unlikely.
4.
The likelihood of a scenario which would challenge safety valves during the remainder of Cycle 11 is remote.
S.
The likelihood of both Items 3 and 4 occur-Mg (and further, resulting in valve leakage) coincident wito incperability of both primary and backup monitor cn that same vahe is particularly remote.
The staff concludes from the above discussion that the preposed one-time change does not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of the public, and is, therefore, acceptable. The staff also concludes that changes to capitalize the Technical Specification definitions when use in specification in Section 3.13.A 3.13.B and 3.13.C are administrative changes and are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has detennined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released effsite, and that there is no signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Conrnission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards con.ederation and there has been no public criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility coninent on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli 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.
l l
t I
3-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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 28,1988 Principal Contributors F. Orr A. Oromerick i
e