ML20237B733
| ML20237B733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237B731 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808190207 | |
| Download: ML20237B733 (2) | |
Text
a f Mouqk p*
UNITED STATES s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 196 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR. INC. AND J2RSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 31,1996, GPU Nuclear, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs). The amendment deletes Table 3.5.2 which lists automatic primary containment isolation valves (CIVs). In addition, this amendment clarifies the applicability of an action statement which applies to several limiting conditions for operation in Section 3.5 and deietes closure time requirements for several automatic isolation valves in Section 4.5.F.
2.0 EVALUATION The Commission's regulations specify those requirements which must be included in TS. The component list is not required to be included in TSs under 10 CFR 50.36 because the CIVs are not safety limits, liniiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting conditions for operation, or surveillance requirements, design features, or administrative controls.
Deletion of Table 3.5.2 is consistent with the staff's Generic Letter (GL) 91-08, " Removal of Component Lists from Technical Specifications," dated May 6,1991. The staff finds therefore, this change is acceptable.
iri addition to removing Table 3.5.2, the table of CIVs, from the TSs, the licensee has also proposed related changes to TSs 1.13,3.5.A.3.a.,4.5.F.1., and 4.5.F.2. Currently these TSs refer specifically to the table being deleted, so instead they will be revised to refer to the automatic CIVs as a group. This is in accordance with the provisions of Generic Lettsr (GL) 91-08, with one difference. GL 91-08 states that reference should be made to all CIVs rather than all automatic CIVs, once the list of CIVs is removed from the TS. In general, T3 lists of CIVs at most plants would contain most or a!! of the CIVs, so it would be appropriate, when removing the list, to instead refer to all CIVs. However, the CIV table at Oyster Creek lists only automatic CIVs; thus, it is appropriate to limit the references in the revised TSs to only the automatic CIVs.
TS 4.5.F.1. currently lists maximum clo.sure times for several automatic CIVs. In accordance with GL 91-08 and the staff's improved Standard Technical Specifications, the licensee has proposed to delete the closure times for all but the four main steam isolation valves (MSIVs).
The requirement to test the closure times of the currently listed valves and other CIVs and demonstrate they are within their limits is not being eliminated from the TS; only the list of valves l
l 9808190207 900813 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
c-4 l
j ano the specification of the numerical values of the time limits are being deleted. The proper closure One limits will continue to be denoted in plant procedures. The closure times for the MCVs are being retained in the revised TS because, unlike the other valves, the closure t
times of the MSIVs have a direct influence on the consequences of several postulated accident sequences. The staff finds these changes to be acceptable because they are consistent with the provisions of GL 91-08.
Current TS 3.5.A.7. is an action statement which requires that a shutdown be initiated and the i
plant put in cold shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if TS 3.5.A.1.a b, c(1), or 3.5.A.2. through 3.5.A.S.
cannot be met. As an editorial change, the licensee has proposed to delete the current TS and instead move the action requirements to each of the individual TSs. Presenting the information in this way will make the requirements easier to understand without changing the actual requirements. Therefore, the staff finds this editorial clarification to be acceptable.
l The licensee has also proposed changes to the associated Bases sections wh!ch are consistent with the revised TSs; the staff also finds these changes to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l 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 defineo in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC stk(f has determined i
L 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 incr ase in e
individual 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 66707). Accordingly, the 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 prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the consideratbns 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, (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: J. Pulsipher Date: August 13, 1998 i
z U
a--