ML20204B742
| ML20204B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204B707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810200306 | |
| Download: ML20204B742 (3) | |
Text
/
'o UNITED STATES
~g f"
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- J E
WASHING TON, D. C. 20655 k*....p SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REG"LATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.128 TO PROVIS10tlAL OPERATitlG LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK HUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 00CKEY NO. 50-219 1.0 iflTR000CTION By letter dated June 21, 1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN or licensee) requested an amendment to the Provisional Operating License No. OPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Huclear Generating Station.
The proposed amendment would delete the requirement for a daily exercise of the Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV's). Specifically, these changes are:
(1) Section 4.5.I.3.a of the Technical Specifications (TS) has been deleted and Section 4.5.1.3.b of t e TS has been incorporated in Section 4.5.1.3 of the TS and (2) the basis for MSIV testing has been revised to reflect the requirements of the ASME Bciler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1974 edition with winter 1973 Ndendum.
2.0 EVALUATION Currently, Section 4.5.1.3.a of the TS requires that during aeriods of sustained power operation each main steamline isolation valve shall be exercised daily (one at a time) to approximately 95% open position with the reactar at operation pcwer levels.
The licensee proposes to delete this TS because th< TS is overly restric-(
tive and should be eliminated for the following reasons:
1.
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 edition, with winter 1973 addendum prescrites that category A and B valves shall be "exercised" at least once every 3 months.
Based on tte Code there is no i
need to perform the 95% open surveillance daily since the quarterly func-tional surveillance (Technical Specification 4.5.3.!(b)) meets tne intent of the Code.
2.
In light of item 1 above, the current daily frequency may prove to be counter-productive as it may accelerate upper rib and poppet pad wear which may possibly lead to degradation of seat tightot ss.
8810200306 8G1012 PDR ADOCK 05000219 p
. In addition, the daily test is performed using a slow closure solenoid l
which is different from the solenoid used in the design of the valves for fast closure (i.e..to completely close in 3 to 10 seconds).
In actuality, the quarterly functional test (TS 4.5.3.I(b)) provides a better indication of the reliability of the valves to perform their design function.
3.
A computerized search of Oyster Creek LER's (submitted from 1978 through 1987) found na incidents where the valves failed the daily test.
However, on April 21,19P8, f4SIV NZO3A did not reach the 95% open position and thus failed the daily test. Plant power was reduced to b'elow 40% and the valve was successfully tested using the quarterly full
.:losure test method. This further den.onstrates that the daily test is not a true indication of valve operability.
Therefore, the daily test has not identified any valve deficiencies or corrective actions to improva valve reliability.
4.
In light of items 1, 2, and 3 the present daily test represents an unnecessary challenge on the operators.
During the surveillance the operator n.ust divert his attention to the test.
In addition, the surveillance unnecessarily reduces the margin to an RPS initiation.
If the MSIV travels past 95% open tn 90% open, a half scram occurs.
Plant TS leg sheet records indicate that this occurred 24 times in the period J
between February 1, 1987 and October 1, 1987.
This is clearly not an effective unnecessary scram frequency reduction practice.
5.
Presently, other BWR plants similar to Oyster Creek are not required to conduct such testing, and the Standard Technical Specifications for BWRs do not require any additional testing other than that specified by the ASME code.
The staff has reviewed the information provided by the licensee and agrees with the licensee that TS 4.5.I.3.a requirirg PSIVs to be exercised daily is I
overly restrictive. We have also determined that the testing of the l'SIVs as l
proposed by the licensee is in accordance with the Standard Technical Specification for BWRs and meets the intent of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI approved for the facility.
On this basis, the staff concludes that the licensee's proposal to delete TS 4.5.I.3.a is acceptable.
l The licensee also proposes that Section 4.5.I.3.b of the TS be incorporated into Section 4.5.I.3.
Section 4.5.I.3.b required quarterly tests to trip valve l
(one at a time) and check full closure time, with reactor power not greater l
than 50% of rated power. This is row incorporated in Section 4.5 I.3 of the i
T.S.
The technical requirenent remains unchanged.
Therefore, the staff finds this change is purely administrative and does not involve any increase in the I
probability of consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create j
the poss!bility of a new or different kind of accident, nor does it result in a decrease in nergin of safety.
On this basis, the change is acceptable.
Further, the licensee 3roposed a charge to the Bases for TS 4.5.I.3.
The licensee has revised tie basis for MSIV Testing to reflect the requirements of the ASFE Roiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1974 edition with winter l
1973 addendum. His testing is in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a and provides sufficient indication of valve reliability.
On this basis we find the revision to the bases for TS 4.5.I.3 to be acceptable, i
~.
r.EM,1,R,0p,M,E N T A L,C,0p,S,1 D E R AT I ON This amendnrent changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility con.penent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the anendnent involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this an,endment involves no significant hazards consideratien and there has been no public connent on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendn.ent meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environn. ental in. pact statenent or environnental assessr.ent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
,C,0NCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurar.ce that the healih and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the propos9d manner, and (2) such activities will be ccnducted in compliarce with the Conr<ission's regulations, and the issuance of 6-the amendnent will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Cated: October 12, 1988 Principal Contributor:
A. Dronerick i
- _ _ _,,.. - -