ML20083G345

Suggests NRC Postpone Approval of 820521 Amend Request 104 & 831011 Rev 1 to Request Until Independent Review Confirms Adequacy of Flow Water from Existing Facility Core Spray Sys

ML20083G345
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	01/03/1984
From:	Scott D NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8401110260
Download: ML20083G345 (2)

Text

__ _

' %g a r?,NA, y

v BtateofNrni.Wersey DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BUREAU OF R ACI ATION PROTECTION 380 SCOTCH ROAD. TRENTON.N.J.c8c23 January 3, 1984 Mr. r,ennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 5 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room 314 Bethesda, Maryland 20014

Subject:

The NPC Notice of a No Significant Hazard Consideration, as Noticed in FR/Vol. 48, No. 208/ Wednesday, October 26, 1983,

p. 49587, Concerning License Amendment Request No. 104, GPU Nuclear Corporation, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, N.J.

The Nuclear Engineering Section within the Bureau of Radiation Protection is routinely reviewing license amendment requests forwarded to us from nuclear power plant licensees in New Jersey pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), and in anticipation of the State consultation procedures as called for by PL 97-415 and promulgated in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50.

We have been following the results of the piping inspection program being conducted at Oyster Creek during their present extended outage. Our review has been prompted, to some extent, by the concern the NRC has expressed about the generic significance of the history of intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) that has occurred in older boiling water reactors such as Oyster Creek and also because of the history of concern about the adequacy of the existing core spray sparger in the Oyster Creek reactor vessel.

We have reviewed Amendment Request No. 104 dated May 21, 1982 and Change Request No. 104 Revision No. 1 dated October 11, 1983 within the context of the historical perspective mentioned above and based on a review of the inspection procedures and results obtained during the present (Cycle 10) outage at Oyster Creek. From a telephone conversation with Jim Lombardo at 8401110260 840103 DR ADOCK 05000219 PDR Nere Jersey is <in Equal Opportunity Employer  %

[

Mr. Crutchfirld Janaary 3, 1984 your office, I understand that the NRC will approve this amendment request shortly. I therefore assume that the licensee and tne NRC have agreed to modify the Oyster Creek license to exclude the requirement to positively replace the core spray spargers during or after the next refueling outage scheduled for 1985. We are also assuming that approval of this license amendment is based solely on the results of the licensee and NRC inspection of the core spray system at Oyster Creek for IGSCC.

Our concern is that the NRC will allow indefinite deferral of replacement of the existing ring design core spray spargers with a new overhead grid design without the benefit of all the technical evaluation of the spray system presently in progress. We can understand extending the use of the exis ing core spray spargers until the next refueling outage based on the most recent piping inspection results which found no progressive or new cracks. However, we are aware that the NRC has also been concerned about the overall effectiveness of the existing core spray system at Oyster Creek in terms of its ability to provide an adequate flow of water to cool the core during a loss-of-coolant accident. We have reviewed the General Electric report " Performance Evaluation of the Oyster Creek Core Spray Sparger" and understand that the NRC also has a similar independent evaluation in progress.

We would like to suggest postponing NRC approval of this license amendment until after your independent review confirms the adequacy of the flow of water from the existing core spray system at Oyster Creek. This would appear to provide a firm basis for a no significant hazard determination by the NRC for this amendment request.

Sincerely,

& dl. Y David M. Scott Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering js

!