ML20217Q658
| ML20217Q658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217Q657 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709030301 | |
| Download: ML20217Q658 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARiog k
UNITED STATES g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoTON. D.C. 2056!M001 5
SAFETY EVAlbATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
[
RELATED Tf' AMENDMENT NO.192 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. 90R-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 5Q-211 1.0 INTRODUCTIGH By letter dated October 4, 1996, as supplemented June 10, 1997, the GPU Nuclear Corporation P.he licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). The requested changes would revise the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR).
The supplemental letter provided clarifying information witnin the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
t 2.0 EVALUA11QM The licensee requested a change to the OCNGS Cycle 16 TSs in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1). The proposed revisions to TS 2.1.A and 3.10.C are described below.
2.1 The licensee proposed to change the safety limit MCPR in TS 2.1.A from 1.07 to 1.09 when the reactor pressure is 1 800 psia and the core flow is 110% of rated based on the cycle-specific analysis performed by General Electric Company (GE) for OCNGS Cycle 16 mixed core of GE8B/GE9B fuel (all GE 8x8 fuel).
It is aisa proposed to replace the refer %ce NE00-24195 with NEDC-24011-P-A-11 [ proprietary information not publicly available). The cycle-specific parameters were used including the actual core loading, tho most limiting permissible control blade patterns, actual bundle parameters, and the full cycle exposure range.
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes which are based on the analyses performed using OCNGS cycle-specific inputs 0,nd appro.x methodologies including GESTAR II (NEDE-240ll-P-A-11', Sectiot.s 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and found acceptable sir.ce the cycle-specific analysis is conservative compared with the generic GE9B SLMCPR evalue. tion and due to (1) the OCNGS Cycle 16 is not an milibrit% core, (2) the OCNGS C).le 16 analysis produces both a flatter bundle-by h.ndle and pin-by-pin peser distribution than that used to perform 970903G301 970826 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
__ _J
, 1 the GE9B SLMCPR evaluation, and (3) the OCNGS Cycle 16 is loaded with a higher 1atest reload batch fraction and a higher latest reload average. weight percent enrichment. Use of-this methodology ensures that greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core will avoid transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving-fuel cladding integrity.
2.2 The licensee proposed to change the MCPR limit in TS 3.10.C from 1.47 to 1.49 in order to reflect the revision to the SLMCPR in TS 2.1.A.
Based on-cur review, we conclude that the changes to the TSs and their associated Ba.as are acceptable for OCNGS Cycle 16 application since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC-approved method and ensure that 99.9% of the core will avoid transition boiling.
2.3-Tne licensee also-requested changes in capitalization for certain definitions that appear in the above specifications and bases and a change to-provide for a uniform type font for Sections 2.1 and 3.10.
--These changes are typographical, provide clarity-to the TSs, and are acceptable to the staff.
In addition, on TS page 3.10-2 the staff discovered a typographical error in the second >aragraph of the Bases and after confirming the correct usage with tie licensee, the word " determined" was corrected to
" determine."
3.0 STATE CONSULTAllQH In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL-CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR-Part 20. The NRC 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 increase in individu' or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the
" amendment involves no-significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment-on such finding (61 FR 57484). Accordingly, the amendment S
meets the eligit,ility criteria for categorical' exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)~. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b)-no envircnmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be-prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:- (1).there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will nat be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with-the Commission's regulations, and-(3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:.T. Huang Date:
August 26, 1997
_ _ _ - - _