ML20137D615
| ML20137D615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137D613 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511270108 | |
| Download: ML20137D615 (5) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/
o UNITED STAT ES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 93 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND E
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER'a LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated September 18, 1984, (ref. 2) GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) to Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). This amendment B
i would incorporate additional requirements on conductivity and chloride g
limits in Section 3.3.E, Reactor Coolant Quality, and revise its Bases.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Penister on February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7988). No public coments or regtests for hearing were received.
~
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 6
As part of the staff's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), the staff l
issued the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report (IPSAR), NUREG-0822, dated January 1983, for OCNGS.
In Section 4.20 Topic V-12.A, Water Purity of BWR Primary Coolant, the staff stated that the safety objective of this section was to ensure that the plant reactor coolant chemistry is adequately controlled to minimize the possibility for corrosion-induced failures of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB). The staff required in the conclusion of this section that the licensee modify the existing limiting conditions for operation for primary coolant chemistry in the TSs to be consistent with the BWR Water Quality Specification (ref. 6) or the current licensing criteria.
The current licensing criteria for conductivity and chloride limits is the guideline limits established in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.56 (ref. 5). The licensee agreed to amend the TS to incorporate these conductivity and chloride limits and the staff found this action acceptable in the IPSAR.
As a result, the licensec, in a letter dated September 18, 1984, proposed to revise the 13 for chlorides and conductivity to be consistent with PG 1.56.
8511270108 851121 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
. l 2.1 Review Criterion 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix A, General Design Criterion 14), requires that the RCPB have minimal probability of rapidly propagating failure. RG 1.56 provides an acceptable method for implementing the criteria with regard to minimizing the probability of corrosior.-induced failure of the RCPB in l
g BWRs. This includes corrosion-induced failures of the RCPB from impurities in the reactor coolant system. The RG identified acceptable reactor water l
chemistry limits and stated that appropriate corrective actions to be defined in the plant TS should be taken.
2.2 Review Guidelines The proposed TS were compared to RG 1.56 guidelines on acceptable reactor water chemistry limits and on appropriate corrective actions to be defined g
in the TS.
2.3 Evaluation The licensee's submittal of revised TS on September 18, 1984, proposed limiting conditions for operation regarding chloride and conductivity limits in the reactor coolant system and appropriate corrective actions to be defined in the TS suggested in RG 1.56 and the staff, therefore, con-cludes the proposed TS are acceptable.
There are two exceptions between the guidelines in RG 1.56 and what the licensee proposed. These exceptions are the following:
1.
The temperature at which conductance analysis was to be made was not specified to be 25 C (77*F) in two proposed TS.
2.
A time limit of 2 weeks per year for operation above 1 micro mho/cm and 0.2 ppm chloride was not addrested by the licensee.
For item 1 above, the licensee did not state in its proposed TS that the unit "S" for conductivity stood for the standard definition of "mhos."
Also, although the licensee did state in proposed TS 3.3.E.5 that the conductivity was to be measured at the standard t <nperature of 25 C (77*F), this was not included in proposed TS 3.3.E.1 and 3.3.E.3.
The licensee has agreed to have the phrase "S=mhos at 25*C (77*F)" added to its proposed TS 3.3.E.1 and 3.3.E.3 for clarification in the August Progress Review Meeting on Licensing Actions of September 18, 1985 (ref. 1).
Incorporating the standard definition for conductivity in the licensee's application of September 18, 1984, is a minor clarification of the proposed TS and, thus, did not require a renotice in the Federal Register of the licensee's application with the addition of this change.
This clarification did not change either the substance of the licensee's application or the basis of the staff's proposed determination that this application did not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Item 2 above refers to footnote "a" to Table 1, Acceptable Reactor Water Chemistry Limits, of RG 1.56. The licensee failed to address the guideline in footnote "a" that states the total time for all incidents exceeding the acceptable reactnr water chemistry limits in Table I should not exceed
2 2 weeks per year.. The staff considers such a restriction on plant operation a necessary part of a method described in RG 1.56 and acceptable to the.
staff for implementing the criteria in General Design Criterion 14 with regard to minimizing the probability of corrosion-induced failure of the RCP8 in boiling water reactors (BWRs) such as OCNGS. This restriction is intheStandardTechnicalSpecifications(STS)forBWRs(NUREG-0123)(ref4).
An acceptable TS to meet item 2 above is a statement in TS 3.3.E.5 th6t the total time for such incidents--as described in TS 3.3.E.5--
should not exceed 2 weeks per year and that restart, after the required shutdown (TS 3.3.E.6) because this limit was exceeded, is permitted after the cause for the out-of-limit condition is determined and corrected and the chemistry limits of TS 3.3.E.5 are reestablished.
The staff considers that the above action by the licensee, if the reactor water chemistry lim!ts in proposed TS 3.3.E.5 are exceeded for a period of 2 weeks per year, is necessary, and should be required by the TS to ensure that the reactor coolant chemistry is adequately controlled i
to minimize the possiblity for corrosion-induced failure; in the RCPB.
'The licensee has not provided a justification for not incorporating this requirement into the TS.
The licensee has also proposed a change to the basis for Section 3.3, Reactor Coolant, of the TS. The changes to the Bases are the following:
(1) revise the paragraph on chlorides in the reactor coolant to state the effect of chlorides on the reactor coolant system and that the chloride limits in the TS are consistent with RG 1.56, (2) delete the paragraph on dissolved oxygen in the reactor coolant and (3) replace the phrase " placing the reactor in the cold shutdown condition" by " reducing the reactor coolant temperature to less than 212*F."
There are no TS on l
dissolved oxygen in the reactor; therefore, the Bases does not need the
[
paragraph on-dissolved oxygen in the coolant. The staff has reviewed these changes and finds them correct, and, therefore, acceptable.
s l
RG 1.56 also contains recommended condensate chemistry limits for the T
feedwater system; however, the limits are not normally included in C
plant TS and are not contained in the STS for BWRs (NUREG-0123). The
[
licensee did not propose such a TS and the staff does not require one.
1 As noted in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on March 16, 1981, (ref. 3) for SEP Topic V-12.A. Oyster Creek has sufficient instrumentation to monitor feedwater conductivity over the range recomended in RG 1.56.
[
In that SER the staff concluded that the alarms of the conductivity meters at the influent and effluent of the demineralizers will fulfill the specific conductivity limits in RG 1.56, especially because the j
influent alann is set conservatively (ref. 3, page 5).
2.4 Sumary i
The proposed OCNGS TS changes regarding reactor water conductivity and chloride concentration limits meet the limits and appropriate corrective actions in RG 1.56 and are therefore acceptable. The staff, however, believs that the licensee should address the guideline in RG 1.56 that I
- - =
the total time for all incidents exceeding the acceptable reactor water chemistry limits should not exceed 2 weeks per year. The licensee should propose appropriate corrective actions for the OCNGS TS or justify why they are not needed. With'this, the staff can completely resolve the issue raised in. Section 4.20 of the IPSAR.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the
' installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the
. amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released E-offsite and that ther is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed findir.g that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical i
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 t
i prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment..
4.0 CONCLUSION
I The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not i-be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and
}
safety of the public.
i 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by T. Michaels and J. Donohew.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
August Progress Review (Licensing Actions) Peeting of September 18, 1985. Meeting Minutes dated October 29, 1985.
2.
Letter from P. 8. Fiedler (GPU) to Director, NRR (NRC), September 18, 1984,
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical
-Specification Change Request lio. 124.
3.
LetterfromD.M.Crutchfield(NRC)toI.R.Finfrock(JCP&L),
March 16, 1981,
Subject:
SEP Topics V-5, Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection and V-12.A. Water Purity of Boiling Water Reactor Pr; mary Coolant - Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant.
l
4.
NUREG-0123, Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for GE BWRs, Revision 2.
5.
Regulatory Guide 1.56, Maintenance of Water Purity in Boiling Water Reactors.
6.
BWR Water Quality Specification (Specification No. SP-1302-28-001) submitted by.the licensee by letter dated August 24, 1982.
Dated:
November 21, 1985 V
I
.