ML19259D356

Summary of 790913 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Implementation of Augmented Offgas Sys & Status of Review of Plant Radiological Effluent Tech Spec Submittal

ML19259D356
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/28/1979
From:	Norwicki S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7910180195
Download: ML19259D356 (7)

Text

-

pa avow UNITED STATES 8 y)er j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSnON 3g

,. C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 k'

September 28, 1979 Docket No. 50-219 LICENSEE: Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L)

FACILITY: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1979, TO DISCUSS 1) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AUGMENTED OF?-GAS (A0G) SYSTEM AT OYSTER CREEK AND 2) TPS STATUS OF REVIEW 0F THE OYSTER CREEK RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SUBMITTAL NRC and JCP&L representatives met in Bethesda, Maryland, on September 13, 1979, to review the natus of implementation of the Augmented Off-Gas system at Oys ter Creek and the JCP&L Radiolo-gical Effluent Technical Specification submittal. The meeting attendees are listed in Attachment 1.

The significant issues discussed at the meeting are summarized bel ow:

1) Augmented Off-Gas System The NRC staff presented their concerns that the A0G system had not yet been put into service even though JCP&L had committed to try to have the system in operation by September 1978. JCP&L then described some problems encountered in their attempt to put the system in service. Two explosions were experienced during startup runs in pre-implementation testing. JCP&L has taken 4 steps since the explosions in the process of trying to put the system into service. These are 1) a new mixing Tee has been installed, 2) the piping has been cleaned to remove the catalyst that has migrated throughout the system, 3) strain and stress guages have been installed to help identify where future detonations are initiated, and 4) a flame arrester has been designed (but not tested) to prevent damage in the air ejector condenser and steam jet air, ejectors in the event of future detonations. The inability to locate a suitable testing location has delayed the installation of the flame arrester.

Initial tests were halted because of complaints about noise during the tests. JCP&L presented Figure 1 (Attachment 2) to describe the configuration with the flame arrester installed.

JCP&L then presented their anticipated schedule for the Oyster Creek refueling and the startup of the A0G. JCP&L plans to shutdown January 5,1980, for refueling and to startup 10 weeks later. Even though the flame arrester testing program is not complete JCP&L was willing to commit to putting the A0G in service during the startup following refueling.

ll 7

7910180} M

Jersey Central Power &

Light Company September 28, 1979 The NRC staff proposed that instead of a committment to a particular date for implementation of the A0G system that JCP&L request Technical Specifications to limit gaseous effluent releases to Appendix I design objective values. By incorporating these limits into the license, the staff felt that several problems can be avoided while still meeting the objectives of low effluent releases.

In particular, since a raw specific date for implementation of the A0G is' not a committment, the incentive for implementing a system with marginal confidence of operability is removed and the incentive for a high level of fuel quality control is instilled. JCP&L committed to submit such a request in ample time for the Technical Specification limits to be in effect at the startup following the January 1980 refueling.

2) Radiological Effluent Technical Soccifications The staff commented on their review of the JCP&L Radiological Effluent Technical Specification submittal. The staff's position was that the submittal was unacceptable because of eight deficiencies, these eight deficiencies were then discussed by the staff and JCP&L. Keypoints and conclusions of this discussion is given below.

1) Definition of Terms; the staff noted that there was no section for the definition of terms. JCP&L responded that for this short submittal each tem was defined within the text and since the submittal was relatively short, a separate section for definition of terms was not warranted.

2) Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation; the staff noted that the specifications for radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation, and their surveillance requirements for liquid and gaseous effluents, were deficient compared to the model Appendix I specifications. JCP&L responded that their proposed specifications were adequate to fulfill Appendix I requirements.

3) Action Requirements for Specifications; the staff noted that the proposed specifications did not include action statements for what is to be done when limiting conditions for operations or surveillance requirements are not met. JCP&L responded that action statements should have been included in their proposal but did not mention how they intend to modify their proposal.

4) Solidification Specifications; the staff noted that solidification specifications were not addressed in the JCP&L proposal. JCT &L responded that waste solidification specifications is a new requirement that was not addressed in the staff guidance and therefore was not included in the proposal. JCP&L did not agree to modify their proposal to add solidification specifications.

Il67 157

Jersey Central Power &

Light Company September 28, 1979

5) Site Maps; the staff noted that site maps were not provided in the proposed Technical Specifications. JCP&L responded that site maps are provided in the Safety Analysis Repcets and serve no useful function in Technical Specifications.

6) Administrative Control Sections; the staff stated that the proposal did not adequately address Responsibilities, Audits, Procedures, Monthly Reactor Operating Reports, Prcmpt Notifi-cation, PCP and ODCM. JCP&L responded that these items were adequately covered in their submittal.

7) Process Control Program (PCP); the staff noted that me PCP was not included in the Technical Specifications nor submitted with their proposal for staff review and approval. JCP&L responded that the PCP belongs in the plant procedures and that I&E or the staff are welcome to read a copy of the PCP at any time. JCP&L offered to send copies of the PCP and ODCM for our infomation but not for staff review and approval.

8) Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM); the staff noted that the ODCM was not included in the Technical Specifications nor submitted with their proposal for staff review and approval. JCP&L responded that the ODCM belongs in the plant procedures and that the staff is

'welcome to copies for information but not for review and approval.

As a general comment JCP&L stated that the model Appendix I Technical Specifications were excessively detail,ed and would dilute the usefulness of Technical Specifications in the control room simply because of the volume of material involved. JCP&L commented that even though their submittal was much less volumunous and detailed than the model Technical Specifications, their submittal met the requirements of Appendix I of the regulations.

The staff responded that the Commission still wants the PCP and ODCM documents for review and approval and that following the meeting the staff would send another letter to JCP&L to request submittal of these documents for staff review and approval. With that comment the meeting was adjourned.

Stanley J. dowicki, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors Attachments:

l.

List of Attendees 2.

Figure 1 l l g /

j g,rg cc w/ attachments:

See r. ext page

s Jersey Central Power &

Light Company September 28, 1979 CC G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 GPU Service Corporation ATTN: Mr. E. G. Wallace Licensing Manager 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Anthony Z. Roisman Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20005 Steven P. Russo, Esquire 248 Washington Street P. 0. Box 1060 Toms River, New Jersey 08753 Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr., Esquire Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07012 Ocean County Library Brick Township Branch 401 Chanbers Bridge Road Brick Town, New Jersey 08723 Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.

Vice President - Generation Jersey Central Power & Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 1167 159

LIST OF ATTENDEES JCP&L K. Goddard J. Knubel K. Fickeissen J. R. Pelrine NRC S. Nowicki T. Wambach J. Wing P. Wagner R. Bangart L. Barrett L. Brown C. DeBevec (IE)

GPUSC C. Mascari J. P. Moore, Jr.

116/

160

I

~

iU l

g o_

~

u r,

r, p

j)

.I-(-'t) fi jri ---

(j 3

["9 o

Ll.

~

]

(- g-[)

~ ~

llEPA FILTE RS (1_ _. _ )

sdS7ims MIKitMJEE i ner.wai ca s

,m..c m a flute _ARRE51ER

navuag, wma,a efta ];

1_-

ty' A gg Gj

},,

c ca-co.ioca2a

--3 l'haarcmeu.m -

_ jfp___ _ _

lI$

0 -/

K 0X

-et-- --

s t,n a s.nen

~ m,,,,

~-

-i > [ _,7,_kj mg,, f), _ C

-~

9:cm ar MR EACM y

pw

]

~

wa

-'7-l-}

bl l

T MIXttM~ _JEE.

2

,').7

'o sc^' eai~

cootca.cev.orie.*g 1

< i y

ritica A

sa some ra u w c

fl40RE I

(

_j m m,

AOC SYSTEM FLOW SCllEMATIC AFTER PRESENT MODIFICATlol45 pQ{i;ow f io 30,,

3 BLACK 9

k*

MEETING SUM *4ARY DISTRIBUTION:

Docket 50-219 NRC PDR Local PDR ORB #2 Readicg NRR Reading H. R. Denton E. G. Case D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer B. Grimes W. Gamill J. Miller L. Shao T. Carter D. Crutchfield D. Ziemann V. Noonan Seismic Review Group A. Schwencer T. Ippolito R. Reid G. Lainas P. Check R. Clark F. Pagano G. Knighton S. Nowicki H. Smith OELD OI&E(3)

R. Fraley, ACRS(16)

T. Wambach J. Wing P. Wagner R. Bangart L. Barrett L. Brown C. DeBevec, ISE Buchanan ERA

/

1167 162