ML20107C564
Text
,
O J
va g p e,,.4 j
UNITED STATES
- F ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
, * -[
wAssincron. o.c. zos4s
/Jf(1 6%
i Docket No.
50-219 AUG 5 1974 Jersey Central Power & Light Company ATTN:
Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.
Vice President - Generation Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road ~
Morristown, New' Jersey 07960
- G' entlemen:
The Director of Regulation has determined that good cause has been i
shown in your request of June 19, 1974, for extending the time until December 11, 1974, under conditions set forth in the enc *osed Determination, for submission of the required ECCS evaluation for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
In addition, the proposed initial operational restrictions are to be submitted no later than August 22, 1974. The conditions and basis for'the extension and additional submittal are set forth in the enclosed i
Determination, a copy of which is.being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely.
/rf~/26.4 Karl R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
Determination cc: w/ enclosure See next page 4
j 9604170404 960213
~"
- ^'
~
~
~. -.
- ; 9* '
^
O 3
Jersey Central Power & Light Company '
AUG 5 1974
'^
[
-cc w/ enclosure G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge and Madden 4
hk to,
b0b
- i GPU Service Corporation ATTN:;. Mr'. Thomas M. Crimmins Safety & Licensing Manager 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 1712 N Street, N'.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 4
Paul Rosenberg, Esquire Daniel Rappoport, Esquire 2323 S. - Broad Street.
Trenton, New Jersey 08610 Honorable William W. Mason Major, Lacey Township j
P. O. Box 475 Forked River, New Jersey.08731 Ocean County Library 15 Hooper' Avenue Toms River, New Jersey 08753 George F. Kugler, Jr.
Attorney General State of New Jersey State House Annex Trenton, New Jersey 08265 (w/cy of incoming DTD 6/19/74) e es. s
- wry
k
.. ~ ~
n.
~
O 3
UNITED STATES ATO'1IC ENERGY CO'4tISSION DOCKET NO. 50-219 JERSEY CEhTRAL POWER AND LIGHT CGIPNiY DETFE!INATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TDIE F0:t SUElllTAL OF EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY ACCEP%l'CE CRT' FERIA FOR DIERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTENS (10 CFR s 50.46(a)(2)(iii))
l As required by 10 CFR subsection 50.46(a)(2), certain licensees must achieve compliance with acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) published in Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, by August 5,1974, unless an extension of time for subr.tission of the required ECCS performance evaluation and proposed Technical Specifica-tions has been approved by the Director of Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR subsection 50.46(a)(2)(iii). As required.by 10 CFR subsection 50.46(a)(2)(iii), a Notice was published in the Federal Register on July 10,1974, (39 F.R. 25415) that the Director of Regulation had received and was considering a request from the Jersey Central Power 6 Light Company (the licensee) for an extension of time tmtil December 23, 1974 of the submittal date for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) ECCS evaluation. The licensee also requested an exemption from the operating requirements of 10 CFR section 50.46; the Co :nission has this request under consideration and has published a notice to this effect.
The Notice published July 10, 1974, invited the submission of views and comments by any interested persons on the licensee's request.
Comments have been received from Friends of the Earth and Consolidated flational Intervenors. These groups oppose the granting of the extension as requested on the grounk that the licensee's application does not kl,1 l]
f
^
~~
~
r.. -. _ _ u..
e o
-),
j present sufficient evidence to demonstrate why the vendor's analyses are r.
5 3.
delayed or why the licensee's review requires excessive time 'fo'r completion.
~
The Regulatory staff has taken these corrects into account in reaching its detemination reflected herein.
In this regard, the Regulatory staff believes that, as noted below, the licensee has shown good cause for the L
i granting of extension of time. The staff did not' consider in its determinati '
of good cause the need for additional time in which to file an exemption request.
In support of its request for an extension of time, the licensee states that the Oyster Creek facility is powered by a General Electric nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) which contains two types of fiiel supplied by Exxon Nucle:
Company (EXXON). The NSSS and five individual fuel types nist be evaluated in order to determine, pursuant to the Commission's criteria, whether Oyster i
l Creek's ECCS is satisfactory.
Furt'hemore, the licensee states that they' do not have the capability for ECCS model development and are dependent, therefor for schedule purposes on the perfomance of particular vendors and fuel suppli In their request, the licensee stated that the blowdown analysis and the i
IJOCA analysis for the G fuel assenblies now in the Oyster Creek reactor will not be available from G prior to Septenber 30, 1974.
Tnus, G's development schedule precludes cetailed technical review t
of the LOCA analysis model by General Public IItiility Service Company (GPUSC) (the licensee's sister ' subsidiary company) for the licensee until after the specified August 5,1974 submittal date.
GPUSC requires three weeks for technical review of the 10CA analysis, and the licensee l
--,1 4
r
- ~
+~~4..
~,.J.
.r
?
9 3
t
, u.
is requires three weeks for the operations and safety cocaittee reviews (pursuant to the Oyster Creek operating license and Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50) and final approval. The licensee estimated the date for submittal of the analysis of the GE fuel to be November 11, 1974.
Similarly the licensee has requested that Exxon provide the complete LOCA analysis of the Ex:xon fuel in the Oyster Creek ' ore.
~
c Exxon requires six weeks from receipt of the GE blowdown analysis -
results to evaluate the performance of the three types of Exxon
.. fuel in the core.
Technical, operations, and safety review of f
this material is expected to consume six weeks.
Thus, the licensee estimates the date for submittal of the analysis of Exxon fuel in the Oyster Creek facility is December 23, 1974.
It is evident from the ' license' 's request that the basi.s. for an e
. extension of time is the unavailability of the necessary evaluation models and analyses from GE and Exxon.
Since the promulgation of the regulation, the Regulatory staff has been engaged in a continuing effort to develop an AEC evaluation model which would meet the requirements of Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50.
A similar effort has been underway by the four vendors of nuclear steam supply systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, including GE.
As the Regulatory staff recognizes from its efforts, this development work has involved a considerable amount of time.
Furthemore, the Oyster Creek reactor is an older design which requires significant changes in the evaluation models now being calculated for General Electric's newer designs.
GE and Exxon must N
a
-%NWg a
. e..._ _- -
. s
- o 3
4-r' prepare separate evaluation models and analyses which are tailored to the Oyster Creek reactor and which will involve additional time beyond the time estimated for submission of the evaluation models
]
for the newer designs.
5 Based upon the Regulatory staff's own experience and its i
' knowledge of the effort on thegart of GE and Exxon to develop adequate evaluation models and analyses, the Regulatory staff believes that the licensee's statements regarding delay by GE and Enon in completing and submitting to it an evaluation model and analyses, constitute good cause for extension of the August 5,1974 deadline for the submittal of the information required by 10 CFR section 50.46 until December 11, 1974.
The Regulatory staff believes that excessive time is required by
' Enon (6 weeks) to submit the ECCS analysis to the licensee, after I
Exxon's receipt of the GE blowdown analysis; about 30 calendar days represents the minimum time for completion, i
During the requested extension period beyond August 5,1974, the licensee proposes to operate the Oyster Creek facility as follows.
On August 5, 1974 the licensee will institute voluntary restrictions on the operating conditions of the facility.
The restrictions will be based initially on the best infonr.ation available at the time - - the interim results of the GE analysis and the preliminary Exxon LOCA analysis (calculated using the results of i
i j
f 9
6 4
NO 4 l
g
.. - -.~.
7..
e O
3
?
~
5 E's Interim Acceptance Criteria (IAC)' blowdown analysis). These analyses are expected to be supplied by E and Exxon to the licensee by July 24, 1974, and July 31, 1974, respectively.
Thereafter, y
i operational restrictions may be varied but only until the analyses.
[
are finalized and proposed modifications to the restrictions-are submitted to reflect updated' calculations. The licensee will advise the Commission as new infomation becomes available and will review this infomation with the Conmission on a timely basis.
~
Recognizing that the restrictions proposed by the licensee will be more restrictive than those imposed by the IAC, this interim, voluntary restriction on operating reactor conditions.is acceptable to the staff.
However, the Regulatory s+aff believes a preliminary evaluation, based on conservative asstrptions, but not necessarily including all of the detail and documentation called for by Appendix K, but which nevertheless provides a conservative assessment of ECCS perfomance under the Comission I Acceptance Criteria, should be submitted to the Director of Regulation by August 22, 1974. The staff recognizes that simplifying, but conservative, assumptions must be em's in order to provide the evaluation by Ausst 22, 1974, but the subnittal nist present details of such assumptions and estina and supporting discussion to demonstrate that the preliminary evaluation meets the Cot '.ssion's acceptance criteria, and include proposed operating limits, if any, required to bring the reactor into confomity with the Co rtission's acceptance criteria.
s e
e
. 4. u -
+ f.
- i.
9 3
Upon receipt of the final evaluation ~models^and analyses from the vendors, the licensee shall submit copies of the final ECCS analyses by GE and Exxon immediately. upon his receipt of these analyses, but no later than September 30, 1974 for GE and October 30,.
1974 for Exxon, for review by the Regulatory staff. concurrent with licensee review.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing considerations and for good cause shown, the Director of Regulation hereby grants en extension of time to the licensee which extends the date for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR subsection 50.46(a)(2)(ii) from August 5,1974 until December 11, 1974, provided that:
- 1) The licensee submits on or before August 22, 1974 a preliminary evaluation of ECCS perfonnance consistent with the requirefnents of Appendix K although not necessarily containing the full detail and the full documentation called for in Appendix K but which nevertheless provides a conservative assessment of ECCS
~ i perfomance under the Commission's Acceptance Criteria,
- 2) The licensee submits on or before August 22,1974 proposed Technical Specification changes required to bring reactor operation into confomity with results of the preliminary analyses and the 1AC,
- 3) The licensee, no.later than August 22, 1974, operates the reactor within the limits of the then proposed technical specification e
g e
'~*f 4
=-..
., >,-....i O
a t
I changes and all technical specifications previously impo. sed by the Comission, including the requirements of the Interim policy Statement (36 F.R.12247, as amended by'36 F.R. 24082, December 18,1971), unless the licensee files a request for exemption from such requirements with the Comission in accordance
, with 10 CFR'secti,on 50.46, and such request is granted.
- 4) The licensee submits copies of the final ECCS analyses by GE and Exxon imediately on his receipt of these analyses, but no later than Septenber 30, 1974, for GE and October 30, 1974, for Exxon, and
- 5) The. licensee submits on or_before Decenber 11, 1974, his completed evaluation and proposed technical specifications pursuant to i
10 CFR section 50.46(a)(2)(ii).
A Dated at Bethesda, hhryland this O day of August,1974.
FOR A10MIC ENERGY C0bMISSION i
?h w
Edson G. Cas Acting Director of Licensing D
s.
"'N