ML20064A199

Application for Amend to License DPR-16,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request 160,Rev 1,clarifying Bases of Section 3.4 on Applicable LOCA Analysis Supporting Plant Operation & Invoking More Restrictive License Condition for Operation

ML20064A199
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/14/1990
From:	Fitzpatrick E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20064A200	List: ML20064A199 ML20064A201
References
NUDOCS 9008270172
Download: ML20064A199 (9)

Text

. ,

l

'* . - l

, l A .

GPU NuclearCorporation i NUCIMF One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 316-7000 1 TELEX 136-482 i Writers Direct Dial Number: 1 August 14, 1990- .e 1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention Document Control Desk

, Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen Subjects Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)

.Dockat No. 50-219 Technical Specification Change Request 1

(TSCR) No. 160, Rev. 1

-In accordance with 10CFR50.90 and 10CFR50.91 GPU Nuclear Corporation, operator of the oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Provisional operating License No. DPR-16, requests a change to Appendix A of the license.

By letter. dated ~ January 26, 1989, GPUN submitted TSCR No. 160 concerning the Core Spray System and Section 3.4 of the Technical Specifications. Upon review, the staff indicated that additional information would be required to support plant operation with one core spray loop inoperable. As a result, and consistent with our discussion with the staff of January 8, 1990, TSCR No. 160,

.Rev. 1 is being submitted.

'TSCR No. .160, Rev.-1 clarifies the Bases of Section 3.4 with respect to.the applicable LOCA analysis supporting plant operation, and the invoking (Cyclo 12 '

only) of a'more restrictive LCO (Automatic Depressurization System) with one core spray loop inoperable; and expands the text to address a. core spray line break inside the drywell in the operable loop. In order to avoid confusion, l

the proposed changes of TSCR No. 160 Rev. I have been incorporated into.the i

proposed changes of TSCR,No. 160 and submitted in their entirety.

This change request has been reviewed in accordance with Section 6.5 of the Oyster-Creek Technical Specifications. Pursuant to 10CFR50.91(b)(1),-a copy or this change requost has been sent to the State of New Jersey Department of l.

Er.vironmental Protection.

Very truly yours, 9008270172 900814 fh)

E. E. Fittpatrick ADOCK 0500 2 9 Vice President & Director

{DR oyoter Creek EEF/DJ/cb(7586f)

Attachment QQQ$Q cc's on next page GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utdities Corporation ,

+

'l '

4

'4

,'.

• i.

$ct ' Administrator

. Region-I U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory: Commission 't 475: Allendale Road-

~

King of Prussia, PA. 19406 NRC Resident Inspector-Oyster _ Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, N.J. 08731 Mr. Alex Dromerick  !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C. 20555 L

i b

i 1

s i t s

t.

l.

I' rs i

f i

1.

1 7586f 2

~*

GPU Nuclear Corporation N U O M r- One Upper Pond Road .

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 316 7000 TELEX 136-482 Wnters Direct Dial Number.

August 14, 1990 I The' Honorable Debra Madensky Mayor of Lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road (

Forked River, NJ 08731

Dear Mayor Madersky:

Enclosed herewith is one copy of the Technical Specification change Request No.

160, Rev. 1 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Operating License.

This document was flied with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 14 ,1990 t.

Very truly yours, E. E. Fitt trick Vice President'& Director 1 Oyster Creek '

EEF/JDL/cb-Enclosure 1

1 1

I l

7386f '

m GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utihties Corporahon

4 GPU Nuclear Corporation N'I F e:

. One Upper Pond Road -

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 316-7000 TELEX 136-482 Wnters Direct Dial Number, ,

August 14, 1990 Mr.-Kent Tosch, Director Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of; Environmental Protection CN415 Trenton, NJ 08628  ;

Dear Mr. Toscht' Subjects- Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 Technical Specification Change Request No. 160, Rev.' 1 i

Pursuant'to 10CFR50.91(b)(1), please find enclosed a copy of the subject '

document which-was filed with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on. August 14 ,1990 Very truly yours, E. E. Fitzpatrick ff

• Vice President & Director Oyster Creek EEF/JDL/cb Enclosure

( 7586f GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

CPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION-

, OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 Technical Specification Change Request No. 160 Rev. 1 ,

Docket No. 50-219 Applicant submits, by this Technical Specification Change Request No. 160, Rev.

1 to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, a  !

change to pages 3.4-1, 3.4-5, 3.4-6, 3.4-7 and 3.4-8. lr By:

E. E. F1't$ patrick Vice President & Director Oyster Creek Sworn and subscribed to before me this 14th day of Aucust. 1990 .

tJ/ J //l . >f .

NgiARYPUBLICOFNEWJERSEE JUDITH M. CROM Notary PutRs of StewW

'y Commission Egiros 'f # Y / #I 7586f

. .. q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE' MATTER OF )

) DOCKET No. 50-219 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i i

This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request No.

160, Rev. I for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, filed with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 14 , 1990, han this day of August 14 , 1990, been served on the Mayor of Lacey Township, Ocean County, New Jersey by deposit in the United States mail, addressed as follows:

The Honorable Debra Madensky Mayor of Lacey Township 818 West Lacey _ Road Forked River, NJ 08731 4

By:

E. E. Fitzpatrick Vice President & Director i Oyster Creek

.I DATED:

i f

4 t

l l

7586f

n OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16. ,

DOCKET NO. 50-219 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO 160, REV. 1 Applicant hereby requests the Commission to change Appendix A to the above captioned license as indicated below. Pursuant to 10CFR50.-91, an analysis.

concerning the determination of no significant hazards considerations is also presented:

1. Section to be Chano2d 3.4 " Emergency cooling"

2. Extent of Chance P

Section 3.4 changed to incorporate the 10CFR50.46 LOCA analysis that is the basia for the MAPLHGR limits provided in Technical Specification Section 3.10 " Core Limits." The Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) and Bases have been changed as appropriate. A note was added to account for the more restrictive LCO for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) when one core spray loop is declared inoperable.

3. Chances RecueJJ;,gd As indicated on the attached revised Technical Specification pages 3.4-1, 3.4-5, 3.4-6, 3.4-7 and 3.4-8.

4. DiscusE12D  ;

GPUN has recently held discussions with the NRC staff concerning the

. requirements of 10CFR50.46 and the Technical Specifiestion LCOs for the Core Spray System (CSS). The staff stated that during operation with one core spray loop inoperable, which is a currently existing LCO, the remaining operable loop must meet the requirements of 10CFR50.46, Appendix K. The staff's_ position was that the inoperable core spray loop constitutes a single failure which must be addressed when demonstrating compliance with 10CFR50.46, Appendix K. TSCR No. 160, Rev.-1 incorporates the'10CFR50.46, Appendix K analysis into the Bases of Section 3.4 and changes the CSS LCOs such that the staff's position is reflected. The LCOs have been changed such that the APLHGR limits are dependent upon the level of CSS availability.

NEDC-31462P " OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION SAFER /CORECOOL/

GESTR-LOCA LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT ANALYSIS," August 1987; provides the results of LOCA analysis performed in accordance with NRC requirements and demonstrates conformance with ECCS acceptance criteria of 10CFR50.46.

NEDC-31462P has been reviewed and approved by the staff via License Amendment #129 concerning the Cycle 12 reload application. The analysis demonstrates that the 10CFR50.46 criteria will be met assuming a coincident flow of 3400 gpm from one CSS sparger and 2200 gpm from the other CSS sparger. The Oyster Creek CSS consists of two loops; cach containing a core spray sparger, two main pumps and two booster pumps.

Note that the CSS loop associated with the cracked sparger would be required to supply 3640 or 2360 gpm, as appropriate.

l l

7586f

The existing Specification 3.4.A.1 requires CSS component availability which is consistent with that assumed in the NEDC-31462P analysis and

)

therefore need not be changed.

GPUN Topical Report 053 " Thermal Limits With one Core Spray Sparger" demonstrates (consistent with NEDE-30010A, " Performance-Evaluation of the oyster Creek Core Spray Sparger", January 1984 and the NRC's associated-Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 1984) that with an APLHGR of less than or equal to 90% of the limits provided in Specification 3.10.A, the acceptance criteria of 10CFR50.46 will be met' assuming 3400 gpm from a single sparger at 110 peig.

Proposed Specification 3.4.A.3 provides the action statements required when a CSS loop or its core spray header delta P instrumentation becomes inoperable during the run mode. TSCR No. 160, Rev. 1 modifies the action statement such that, in addition to retaining the existing requirements that the remaining loop contain no inoperable components and be demonstrated daily to be operable, the APLHGR limits will be brought to 90% of the limite given in Specification 3.10.A within two hours of the loop being determined lanperable. With these actions the CSS will provide flow to the core sufficient enough to meet the acceptance criteria of 10CFR50.46.

Proposed Specification 3.4.A.4 provides the action statements required when one of the redundant active loop components in the CSS becomes inoperable during the run mode. TSCR No. 160, Rev. 1 modifies the action- l statement such that it distinguishes between an inoperable core spray booster pump and an inoperable core spray main pump. With respect to a core spray booster pump; the action statement remains the same, that is,.

the other core spray booster pump in the loop must be demonstrated daily '

to be operable. This action is appropriate based upon the LOCA analysis represented by NEDC-314G2P. With respect to a core spray main pump, the action statement is changed such that, in addition to retaining the existing requirement to demonstrate that the other core spray main pump in the loop is operable daily, the APLHGR limits will be brought to 90% of the limite given in Specification 3.10.A within two hours of the component j being determined inoperable. This action is appropriate based upon the i GPUN Topical Report 053.  ;

During Cycle 12, the LCO associated with the ADS must be invoked when one core spray loop is declared inoperable. Specifically the action required i by Note H, item G, Table 3.1.1 supercedes 3.4.A.3, and the reactor must be l placed in the cold shutdown condition within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. Under the current. l I

ADS circuit configuration, one ADS division must be declared inoperable concurrent with the loss of one core spray loop. During 13R, a modification will eliminate the loss of an ADS division concurrent with an inoperable Core Spray Loop, and then the plant can remain in operation for a period not to exceed 7 days. l l

.5. Determination l' l l

CPU Nuclear has determined that operation of the oyster Creek .uclear l Generating Station in accordance with the proposed technical ,

specifications does not involve a significant hazard. The changes do not: 1 1

l l

l

?

<, il ' Involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequence ,

of an accident previously evaluated. The probability of an accident is not dependent.upon APLHGR limits. There are no changes to plant configuration, availability of safety systems, the manner =in which.the-safety systems are initiated or the way the plant is operated that.

will increase the probability or consequences of an accident.

r

2. Create the-possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, nor does it change the availability of safety systems or the manner in which they respond to initiating events. As such, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any.

previously evaluated is not created.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed APLHGR-limits are based upon analysis results which were performed in ,

accordance with methods and procedures approved by NRC for use at Oyster Creek, thus the margin of' safety is not reduced.

l 1

l l

1 l

l I