ML20151H871
| ML20151H871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1983 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Smith H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H203 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-26 NUDOCS 8310040096 | |
| Download: ML20151H871 (1) | |
Text
hW
, July 6,1983
[
~~
l Note to'H. Smith
SUBJECT:
OYSTER CREEK 1 - CORE SPRAY SPARGER (DELD#834240)
I have a couple problems with the no significant hazards determination.
First. it may be that the licensee doesn't expect any further degra-dation; why are we making'a present guess that we expect no further degradation?
I think you shouldn't phrase it tEt way but rather phrase it along the lines of if there has been no further degradation then we will consider the extEsion.
If there has been further degradation, then they have to replace the spargers before they restart.
That's the easy part.
The hard part is - now you have to reach a no significant hazards consideration conclusion on the basis of the change. The change is going to let ther.: operate with the interim repair for an additional cycle. That's another 18 months with this patched-up sparger system. You have to explain the basis for the justification for why another 18 months with this sparger s
system is okay.
If you are using the same reasons given in the earlier SER. you have to explain why those reasons given in the earlier conclusion are still valid for another 18 months.
You need to do some more work on this one.
Its in the right direction but it just doesn't go far enough.
q) i M
cc:
C. Trammell
+
W
- k. '
s,
{-
g y
%~n y % y
. s1 q
, %N(
N N
m Y5;/004dOk
'l f 'g r
i
?!{
/
~
I
/
f
'G
. J. f J) '..:5 h.,_n_)-[!c f
y
-: 0%
]
T,__3' M '
.)
d4 C
g 4
~
'A 1
+
/
sJ[
/
Note to:
J. Lombardo, LPM, ORB #5 4
From:
Colleen Woodhead, OELD
/
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENTS FOR OYSTER CREEK NGS (1) TS REGARDING ISOLATION CONDENSER ISOLATION JALVES (TSCR 115)
^
(2)DEFERRALOFREPLACEMENTOF.
RAY SPARGER (T50R lu9 Inreviewingtheproposedfindingofnosignificanthazards(NSH)for these amendments, I find that it is not clear on what basis the Staff has determined that no significant hazard exists and that the determination for the isolation condenser isolation valves rests on GPU's vague assessment rather than Staff's.
As to the core spray sparger replacement, it is not clear whyy the Staff previously believed it necessary to replace it in Cycle 10 but now it is satisfactory to delay another cycle, j
Please revise the explanation of the bases for the NSH and explain why the amendment will not (a) increase the probability or consequences of an accident, (b) significantly decrease the safety margin or (c) result in an accident different from any previously evaluated. As written, the proposed amendments state that GPU has reviewed the TS change for the condenser isolation valves and detennined there is no significant hazard and that a past Staff assessment for a different cycle is valid for an additional one.
h
/
j j
$e
\\
l f
a 1l AAPf ^L 1
v l
--