ML20082U360
| ML20082U360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082U316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109200126 | |
| Download: ML20082U360 (3) | |
Text
.
tk0 'Ib
/p g'g UNITED STATE S
!\\
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
psmNotoN. o c. rosss i
1.,
.,[
e...
S A f E T Y E V AL U AT 10 fl GY_T[E,,0ff 1,C E, O f, fiU,C L.E AR, fJ,AC,TO R,,F E,GU,L,AT,10!!
{'J,l,A,T,Ep,,19, Ati[f4014EflT t10, 154 10 f AC1t 1TY OF QATJti,G, L1,CEp,SJ, t10,, pPR,-J[
GPU tl0 CLEAR 20FPORAT10t1 AND JER5Er tMfttM' $ p(,13 3 @, pap,Y OYSTER CPEEK W CLEAR GEllERATING STATION 00C K E T !!0,.,,5,0,-JJ 9 0
1.0 JHTR000CT10N By letter dated June 11, 1991, GPU fiuclear Corporation (licensee) submitted its amendment to Generic letter (GL) 88-01 intergranular stress corrosion cracking (1GSCC) inspection plans for refueling outage 13 (first quarter 1991) that was submitted October 19, 1991.
The revised submittal describes the changes to the wubject 105CC inspection plan by deferring stress improvement plans from 13R to ICR and deferring closure head welds repair / replacement plans f rom 13R to 14R.
In addition the June 11, 1991 submittal included a Technical Specification (TS) change regarding GL 88-01 position on an inservice inspection (151) statement.
2.0 DISCUSS 10J The licensee's submittal dated June 11, 1991, contained the same information provided in its submittal dated October 18, 1990, regarding IGSCC inspection results/ repairs for refueling outages 10R,11P and 12R, water chemistry control at Oyster Creet, technical clarifications to GL 88-01 and f4VREG 0313, Rev.
2.,
and the planned mitigating action to minimire the susceptibility to IGSCC.
The items in the licensee's letter dated October 18, 1990, were evaluated and addressed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated June 28, 1991 and were found to be acceptable with the exception of the licensee's position on cast stainless steel piping components and post inspection of stress improved (51) welds.
In the licensee's subject revision to its GL 88-01 1GSCC inspection plan, it revised the number of replacement welds (1GSCC Category A) from 91 to 80 welds for 13R. The reduction in inspection sample was due to design changes in the isolation condenser (IC) piping system af ter the licensee's letter dated October 18, 1990 was submitted.
In the area of IGSCC mitigation actions the licensee proposed that all the new welds in the isolation condenser will be stress improved during 14R, including all new welds outside the second isolation valves, and it will replace the Head Cooling Spray Nozzle Assembly, the 4" Tee 9109200126 910912 ADOCKOS00g9 PDR P
b
-2 and the flange of the reactor vent line with IGSCC resistant material.
In addition, the licensee proposes to stress improve, and perform post process inspection of the safe-ends in A, B, D, and E loops of the recirculation system during 140.
The licensee also submitted its TS amendtent request regarding the GL 88-01 ISI statenent in its letter dated June 11, 1991. The proposed TS meets the requirenents of GL-P8-01 and, therefore, is acceptablo.
-7ased on the information provided by the licensee, the NRC staff concludes that the revised IGSCC inspection plan for 1?R and 140, IGSCC inspection reports, and GL P8-01 responses are acceptable with the exception of the licensee's-position regarding inspection of cast stainless steel piping components and post inspection of SI welds as discussed in the NRC's safety evaluation dated June 28, 1991.
The licensee should determine the chemical pioperties and ferrite number
_and revise the IGSCC classification of the subject welds as discussed in the NRC's Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 1991._ Furthermore, the staff found the licensee's proposal to amend the Oyster Creeks TS regarding the GL 88-01 ISI statement acceptable.
3.0 STEE,,Cpp,SULTATION In accordan:e with th7 Connission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of-the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no cocoents.
4.0,EF,V,1,Rppp,EF,T,A,L,,C,0p,S,1 D E R AT I O N The arendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility cumponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 2R Dnt 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no of(any effluents that a Jy be released offsite, and that there is no_if -it increase in s
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission _ nas previously issued a proposed finding that the amendn.ent involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 31434). 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 considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that trr health and safety of the public will not be endangered by' operation in the proposed manner, (2) such
3 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and(3)theissuanceoftheamendrentwillnotbeinimicaltothecommon-defense and security or to.the health and safety of the public.-
Principal Contributor:
T. McLellan Date: September 12, 1991 L
O i
l a
e
_y
.