ML20248L161
| ML20248L161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248L157 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100467 | |
| Download: ML20248L161 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _
pren p
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30e86 0001 o%...../
SAFETY EVALUAT!ON BY THE QFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 195 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR. INC. AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219 l
l By letter dated December 10,1997, GPU Nuclear, Inc. (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operati's License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) and the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to the license. The requested changes consist of administrative changes to clarify potentially unclear and ambiguous wording in the Bases and to correct other errore noted as a result of a systematic review by the licensee.
The proposed TS modifications will:
1.
reword TS Bases 2.3 to more clearly define the justification for the existing limits, 2.
correct a typographical error in Table 3.1.1 at G.1, 3.
correct a typographical error in Table 3.1.1 at M.2, 4.
correct a typographical error in Section 4.3.C, j
5.
change a position title in SecDn 6.1.1, 6.
change the scram bypass reactor pressure cetpoint in Table 3.1.1, note b, j
7.
change Section 3.4 Bases, 8.
change Section 3.8 Bases, and 9.
char.ge Section 4.5 Bases.
2.0 EVALUATION I
2.1 Proposed change: Change the wording in Specification 2.3 Bases which more clearly defines the justification for the existing limits.
j i
I 9906100467 990604 l
PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
l
. Evaluation: This change to the Bases expands and clarifies the projections associated with low pressure isolations and makes the Bases consistent with the changes associated with proposed change 2.6. The staff finds this acceptable.
2.2 Proposed change: Change the setpoint in Table 3.1.1, item G.1 from <3.5 to s3.5.
Evaluation: The High Drywell Pressure setpoint in Table 3.1.1, item G.1 was inadvertently changed from s3.5 to <3.5 as a result of a typographical error when issuing Amendment 171 to the facility TSs. The correct value of the set point is s3.5, which was established as a result of Amendment 112 to the facility TSs and as reflected in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Table 7.3-1, item 7 and 13. This change 1
corrects the typographical error and is acceptable.
2.3 Proposed change: Change the location of the relay designated SK2A in the 10 second timer column in Table 3.1.1, item M.2, to the 120 second timer column.
Evak,ation: As a result of a typographical error in issuing Amendment 160 to the facility TSs, relay designator SK2A, was mictakenly placed in the column under 10 second timer instead of in the column under 120 second iimer. This change will correct a typographical error and is acceptable.
2.4 EIDposed change In Section 4.3.C, change 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(l) to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(6)(l).
Evaluation A typographical error was introduced when Amendment 82 vas issued to the facility TSs. Changing 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1) to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(6)(l) will correct the typographical error and is acceptable.
2.5 Proposed change: In Section 6.1.1, change the title of the Deputy Director to Director-Operation and Maintenance.
Evaluation: The proposed change is the result of a change in management title only and does not represent a change in any of the duties or responsibilities of the position previously described in the TS and is acceptable.
2.6 Proposed chance: Change the scram bypass reactor pressure setpoint in Table 3.1.1, note b, from <800 psia to <600 psig.
Evaluation The set point was changed prior to restart from refueling outage 10R as a result of the lower bound of the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit presem range being raised from 600 psig to 800 psia. As part of the Cycle 10 reload l
subm m the Td Table 3.1.1, note b was changed from <600 psig to <800 psia, however, L
the G Fesos specifying <600 psig was not changed. An evaluation was completed to jusc mising the MCPR lower bound but an evaluation to raise the set point was not done and in fact the licensee maintained the <600 psig value through use of procedures and standing orders.
Plant ooerations have not been impacted by not having use of the < 800 psia value and it is more conservative in that it provides a lower level below which protection can be
. passed. Bypassing the low condenser vacuum and main steam isolation valve closure
. anticipatory scrams is permitted to allow for establishing tuttnne seals and condenser vacuum while starting up with reactor pressure below the predetermined setpoint value.
The staff finds the lower value of <600 psig acceptable.
2.7 Proposed change: Removal of a paragraph from Section 3.4 Bases Evaluation: The referenced paragraph describes the ability of the Control Rod Drive System (CRD) pumps to provide high pressure injection capabilities for Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCA) below the size of.002 square feet. The CRD pumps are not safety related and no credit is taken for them in their Appendix K analysis. Smell break LOCA analysis are calculated down to.05 square feet which is well beyond the capabilities of the CRD pumps. The removal of the paragraph is acceptable to the staff.
2.8 Proposed change: Revision to the description of the isolation Condenser System in l
Bases Section 3.8 to reflect the removal of the radiation monitors.
Evaluation The isolation Condenser radiation monitors were removed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. Their removal had no impact on the operation of any plant system and they were not relied upon for any post-accident evaluations. Accordingly, the Bases is updated to reflect this change in the system. The staff finds this acceptable.
2.g Proposed change: Revision of Bases Section 4.5 to remove reference to a brand specific product.
Evaluation The current bases page in Section 4.5 contain: the name of a brand specific chemical used in the performance of a surveillance test. This change will remove the reference to the specific brand name whereby allowing the licensee to use other brands and equivalent chemicals. The staff finds this acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
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 roisased offsite, and that there is no significant increase in 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 (62 FR 4313). 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.
i o
\\
5.0 CONCLUSION
1 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 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 secunty or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor.
R. Eaton Dated: June 4, 2398 l
l l
)
1 9
s m__m-- - -
____m__
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _