ML20064B052

Application for Amend to License DPR-16,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request 189 Re 24-month Cycle Surveillance Extensions

ML20064B052
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/21/1990
From:	Fitzpatrick E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20064B053	List: ML20064B052 ML20064B054
References
NUDOCS 9010040283
Download: ML20064B052 (10)

Text

.t>

4 "c,

1 OPU Nuclear Corporation oute ou h

" ~

Forked piver, New Jersey 08731-0388 609 97)-4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

September 21, 1990 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attentions Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Subject Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Technical Specification Change Request No. 189 14 Month Cycle Surveillance Extensions Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, GPU Nuclear Corporation, operator of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16, requests a change to Appendix A of that license.

The attached technical Specification Change Request proposes to revise the Technical Specifu:ations to accommodate implementation of a 21 month operating cycle with a 3 month outage, or a 24 month plant refueling cycle for Technical Specification surveillanco intervals which will expire prior to the currently ccheduled 13R refueling outage. The attachment provides justificat ' n to support the proposed Technical Specification revisions.

Additional surveillance extensions were subtaitted on March 2, 1990 (TSCR No. 185), May 4, 1990 (TSCR No. 187) and July 24, 1990 (TSCR No. 177, Rev. 2).

This change request has been reviewod in accordance with Section 6.5 of the OCNGS Technical Spe:ifications, and using the att.ndards in 10 '-FR 50.92 we have concluded that this pronored change does not constitute a e' gnificant hazards 4

consideration.

. 4.

Y Purauant to 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a copy of this change request has been sent to the State of New Jersey Department. of Environmental Protection.

Very truly yours,

~

(

E. E.

Fitzpatrick Vice President and Director Oyster Cree,t g0k E~EF/DJD/ pip ("'SCR189)

Attachment 901004028.? 900921 g(

PDR ADOCV 05000219 p

PDC h)hhj GPU Nuclear Corpcutr

.s a subsid.ary of General Pubiic Utilities Corpoction 3,

g o

a

t.

\\ :-

cos-~ Administrator-Region IL.

t U.ES. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission

+

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia,-PA ~19406 NRC Resident Inspector

' Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station-Forked River, N.J.

08731 Mr.-Alex Dromerick, Jr.

. U..S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'DC 20555-A e'

I

~.

4

=i 4

s v

.b 4

't i'

i'

\\

't k'l I

1 n._

.i 1

s

~

3

,7

- t-h OPU Nuclear Corporation -

gg'.,

Route 9 South Post Office Box 388 i

Forked River, twee Jersey 08731-0388

-l L.,

609 971-4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

1 September 21, 1990 The' Honorable Debra'Madensky l

~

Mayor of Lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road L._

. Forked River, New Jersey 08731 1

,(

' Dear Mayor Madensky 1

Enclosed herwith is one copy of Technical. Specificat: ion Change Request No.

189 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation Station Operating License.

)

This document'was filed with the United States' Nuclear Regulatory Commission' 1:

September 21, ~ 1990.

,on l'.

lli very truly yours, I

Fl'.z[aE, rick -

E. E.

L.

Vice-Presid'mt and Director l.

Oyster Crehk REF/DJD/ pip (TSCR189)-

li

-Attachment'

.j 3

l.

1

,i! '

s 1

J 1

lf l '

t 1

p:

-l

i. g

'l

\\

,'].

.I w

_\\

la.

l6i

\\

-I } '

e i l

q v

4 t

+

d~

j m

i, l;

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation l W :'

l+'

t,

i lh.3 i

~ '

t

s'

~, i :

'h t-R t

b p

gf '.

GPU Nuclear Corporsilon

(

i Post Office Box 388 Route 9 South-

. Forked River New Jersey 087310388 609 971 4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

September 21, 1990-i

. Mr.iKent Tosch, Director i

Bureau.of Nuclear Engineering

' Department of Environmental Protection CN411 Trenton,fNew Jersey 08625 Dear Mr. Toscht i

I Subjects. Oyster Creek Nuclear Ger.srating Station Provisic,nal Operating License No. DPR-16 Technical Specification Change Request No. 189-

='

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 September 21

, 1990, very truly yours, E. E.

Fitspatr!ck Vice President and Director-Oyster Creek.

O EEF/DJD/ pip (TSCR189)'

[

Attachment-7 i

t h

i

'1' GPU Nuclear t orporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation c

..- h j

.-.+

i li;

+

~ GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ~

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Provisional Operating License No'. DPR-16 Technical Specification

Change Request No. 109.

h Docket No. 50-219 Applicant submits, by this Technical Specification Change Request No.-189 to-

.the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specification',,-a'.,

l change to page 4.15-4 and Operating License page 4.

By E. E. Fitzp5drick.

Vice-President and' Director Oyster' Creek 1

-Sworn and Subscribed to before me this O/

dayofJ 1990.

n

[ANotaryPublicofNJ NatuyPtMeedNewM/ o r '

/

g-p 5

4 z.

'1 l

3

' UNITED. ST:.fES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' In the Matter of

)

)

Dockat No. 50-219-

'I GPU Nuclear Corporation

)

CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE I

This is to certify that a copy-of Technical Specification Cha;.

aquest No.

(

189 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Tanhnical Specifications,;

i

- filed ~with the U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commir, ton on September 21,;1990 i

has this day of September 21, 1990, been Larved on the Mayor of Lacey Township,. Ocean County, New Jersey by deposit in the United States mail, addressed as follows:

The Honorable Debra Madensky.

s J Mayor of Lacey Township 8?.' West Lacey Road Forked Rl.ver, NJ 08731 B.s E. E. Fitzpatrick Vice President and Director L

Oyster Creek r

..q 4

l I

I

=i l

s ll t

5 t

[]

1 s

l(;

g t

'h

. h/

1

+

! -f t ',

I

?

- + -,

1-OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PROVISIONAL OPERAT2NG LICENSE NO. DPR-16 DOCKET NO. 50-219

' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 189 l

Applicant _hereby requests the Commission to change Appendix A to the above L

captioned license as below, and pursuant to 10CFR50.91, an analysis concerning l

the determination of no significant hazards consideration is also presented 1.0 SECTIONS TO BE CHANGED Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16, License Condition 2.C.(7).

Technical Specification Section 4.15, Table 4.15.2, Items 2.a, 2.d, 3.a, t

and 3.d 2.0 EXTENT OF CHANGE l-l L

License Condition 2.C.(7) is revised to extend inspections of all E

accessible surfaces and welds of_both core spray spargers and repair assemblies.from each refueling outage to at least once per 24 months.

Technical Specification Table.4.15.2 is revised to extend the channel calibrations for the Radioactive Noble Gas Monitors and the Effluent Flcw l:

Measuring Devices for the Aain Stack Monitoring System and the Turbine Building Ventilation Monitoring System from once per 18 months to once per

.24 months. The legend te table 4.15.2 is revised to include the designation of 1/24 = once per 24 months, 3.0 CHANGES REQUESTED

' The requested changes are shown on-the attached Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16, page 4, and Technical Specification Page 4.15-44 4.0 DISCUSSION i

The purpose of this Technical Specification change is to revise the License Condition and Technical Specifications to accommodato implementation of the 24-month plant refueling cycle by changing the surveillance (nterval for Technical Specification surveillance requirements which will expire prior to the currently scheduled 13R refueling outage date.

The following p

discussion supports the License Condition and Technical Specification D

changes identified in Section 3.0 above.

t Chance No. 1 Insoection of Core Scrav Snarcer L

License condition 2.C.(7) currently requires that inspectic if all f'

U accessible surfaces anet welds of'both core spray spargers and repair

assemblies be peeformed at each refueling outage, which is presently defined as an11ntec%1 not to exceed 20 months.

i I.h i t i

h j

a t

s

+

i

/

c

,The oyster.creekL reactor vessel contains two independent core spray sparger -

assemblies which are fed'by two separate core spray systems.

Each of these systems is provided with fully redundant pumps,-valves, power supplies, controls and instrumentation, so that each system can perforr the safety-function in the presence,of a single failure in that system. The core

~

' spray! system delivers a low pressure spray pattern over the fuel following-1.

a LocA,.to limit peak clad temperature below 2200*F.

Each core spray sparger system assembly consists of two 180' segments of formed 3 1/2 inch Schedule 40S stainless steel piping, each of which contains 56 sJray nozzles (112 nozzles total per sparger ring assembly).

Each 180 ' segment

. consists of two 90' arms which are connected to a 5 inch schedule 40 inlet' pipe. -Thw nozzles are designed to provide a spray pattern that ensures each fuel bundle receives cooling flow. The proposed change will extend i..e interval between successive inspections from 20 months to 24 months.

During the 1978 refueling outage at the OCNGS, a scheduled inservice inspection of the reactor internals identified and confirmed the existence of a. crack at azimuth 208' in the upper sparger.

The crack was determined to extend approximately halfway around the sparger circumference. Even though structural and hydraulic analysen indicated that_the cracked sparger was adequate for continued operation, an additional mechanical support was installed.

Examination of the upper spargers during the 1980 refueling outage confirmed that the repair clamp assembly remained as installed in 1978.

Inspection of the balance of the spargers and. annulus piping resulted in twenty-one (21) visual and sixteen (16) ultrasonic (UT) indications. The proposed repair was the addition of seven (7) clamp assemblies to the upper sparger and two (2) clamp assemblies to the lower sparger. These clamp assemblies.were the same in concept, material and cross-section as the-repair clamp which was installed in 1978. The core spray spargers.and annulus piping were inspected during refueling outages in 1983, 1986, and 1988.- No new indications of cracks in the core spray spargers have been identified. These inspections and subsequent NRC Safety Evaluations (dated January 26, 1984;- October 31, 1986; and February 8, 1989) confirmed that the~ core spray spargers are capable of performing their safety function.g The proposed change from refueling outage interval (20 months) to 24 months will have no effect on the atsurance of structural-integrity of the core spray sparger and annulus piping since the results-from the 1983, 1986, and

.1988 refueling outage' inspections confirm that the propagation of existing cracks and_the initiation of new cracks has been alleviated by the

-installation of the repair brackets. Tb arefore, ' the proposed change has no effect on-the safety function of the core spray spargers.

Chance No. 2 Radioactive Gaseous Effluent 'tonitorino Instrumentation Technical Specification Table 4.15.2 currently requires thet channel calibrations be performed for the Radioactive Noble Gas Monitors and the Effluent' Flow Heasuring' Devices for the Main Stack Monitoring System and the Turbine Building Ventilation Monitoring System or.ce every 18 months.

The purpose of the sensor calibration is to verify that system response to sources of known radioactivity at differing decay onergies has not been ul'

i..

W,i 1

, a Y

'^

y degraded.< The Main Stack Monitoring System Radioactive Noble Gas Monitor y

measures; radioactive contamination of' air being discharged from the main l

stack. The Main Stack Monitoring System Effluent Flow Measuring Device 0

2provides; reliable indication of air flow up the main stack. The purpose of the Turbine l Building Ventilation Monitoring System Radioactive Noble Gas Monitor is to measure radioactive contamination o.' air being discharged l

from the, Operating Floor / Lubrication and Feedwater Pump areas of the l-Turbine Building.. The purpose of the Turbine-Building Ventilation l'

~ Monitoring System Effluent Flow Measuring Device provides' reliable indication of tho' air flow up the ventilation stack.

These Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation Systems were recently installed and prior surveillance data history has not yet been established. -The D

proposed change will extend the interval betweca successive channel calibrations from 18 months to 24 months.

li l

The Main Stack Monitoring System and the Turbir.e Building Ventilation L

Monitoring System Radioactive Noble Gas Monitors are subjee". to daily L

channel. checks, monthly source checks, ana quarterly functienal tests in

[

accordance with existing Technical Specification requirements..The monthly

-l l

source check would identify any abnormalities in system response to a single energy _ source. The quarterly functional test verifies that system response to artificially induced input signale equivalent to source terms-at the upper and'1ower radiation level setpoints remains within acceptance

[

)

criteria..The capability to. perform these surveillances is not impacted by l!

an extended calibration surveillance interval.

Thus, any significant change in detector response at a single source strength would be evidenced i

L by monthly source. checks, and any significant change in system functional

]

m capability would be evidenced by quarterly functional tests.

U The Main Stack Monitoring System and the Turbine Building Ventilation Monitoring System: Effluent Flow Measuring Devices are recorded daily and.

j subject.to quarterly functional tests in accordance with existing Technical-S

Specification requirements. The-functional tests include verification of indicator response to varying

flow rates and alarm response to loss of:

L idevices'and are not comprised of-any moving mechanical parts and are not

' flow. The effluent flow measurement devices are essentially solid-state 3

l-subject to significant drift.

l.

~

The proposed change from 18 months to 24 months will have no effect.on the

. availability of the Main Stack Monitoring System or the Turbine Building-s h

ventilation Monitoring System since' Technical Specification required channel checks, source-checke,' and functional tests will allow-operators to J

verify noble gas monitor performance; and since the effluent flow j

. measurement devices.are essentially solid-state, these devices are not L

subject to significant drift. Therefore, the proposed change'has no effect l

on the. safety function of the Radioactive Gasaous Effluent Monitoring i'

Instrumentation for the Main Stack Monitoring System end the Turbine Building Ventilation Monitoring; System.

jf 1

4 l

~

i M

' e n

"5.0 DETERMINATION a; ;

l GPUN has. determined that.this Technical Specification. Change-Request involves no" j

significant hazards

>nsideration as defined by NRC in 10CFR50.92.

l

>1.:

Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the L'-

consequences o an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment r

extends the inu'rval between successive surveillance from 18 or 20 months to 24 months. This change does not involve any change to the actual _

j surveillance requirements, nor does.it involve any change to the limits and j

restrictions on plant operations. The core spray spargers perform a E

post-accident function only, and the Radioactive Gaseous Effluent-3 b

Monitoring Instrumentation provides only-diagnostic information. The t

L 'g' the consequences of accidents previously evaluated is not degraded beyond reliability of systems and components relied upon-to prevent or mitigate i;

l-that obtained from the currently defined surveillance interval. Assurance of system and equipment availability is maintained. This change does not e

j

involve any change to system or equipment configuration. Therefore, this change does not. increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.

Operation of the facility in accordanco with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of-a new or different kind of accident from any accident.previously evaluated. The proposed amendment extends the; interval between successive surveillances from 18 or 20 months to 24 months. -~ This ~

a change does not involve any change to the actual surveillance-requirements, nor does it involve any change to the limits and restrictions on plant 1:

operation.

This change does not involve any change.to system or equipment

-l l

configuration.

Therefore, this change'is unrelated to the possibility of q

creating a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

J

=i E

3.

Operation of the fat.ility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.- The proposed

[

amendment extends the interval between successive surveillances

• rom 18 or l

20' months to 24 montha. This change does not' involve any change to-the

-actual; surveillance reqeirements, nor does it involve any change to the-

limits and restrictions o. plant operation.

The reliability of systems and

-l

O components is not degresed beyond that obtained from the currently defined surveillance intervel. Assurance of system and equipment

availability is maintained. TherGfore, it is concluded'that-operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 1

reductionuin a margin of shtety.

The proposed extension.of-the identified surveillances to 24 months does not.

,i degrade tha. reliability of systems and components beyond that-obtained from the currently defined surveillance interval.

Reliable performance of the systems and, equipment effected by this change has been demonstrated where applicable.

Implementation of the propored amendment will maintain the required level-of.

1 assurance of system and equipment availahility.- Thus, operation of the. facility

.in accordance with the proposed amendment involves rx) significant hazards it 1 considerations.

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION

'Itz is requesta,d that the amendment authorizing this change become effectAve upon

issuance.

1 1

s I

M n

_