ML20206D250

Advises That Util 880513 Tech Spec Change Request 169 Denied Due to Inadequate Justification to Resolve Concerns Over Long Term Behavior of Core Spray Sparger Sys.Notice of Denial of Amend to License DPR-16 Encl

ML20206D250
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/07/1988
From:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fitzpatrick E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
Shared Package
ML20206D253	List: ML20206D250 ML20206D271
References
TAC-68227, NUDOCS 8811170026
Download: ML20206D250 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

e .

+## 8 %'og UNITED STATES

! c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 b r November 7, 1988

(*....

Docket No. 50-219 Mr. E. E. Fitzpatrick Vice President and Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Gererating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO.169 (TAC.NO. 68227)

By letter dated Hey 13, 1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) requested a change to Appendix A of the Oyster Creek Provisional Operating License. OPR-16. The subject Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No. 169 proposed to amend paragraph 2.C(7)ofProvisionalOpiiratingLicenseNo.OPR-16forfuture(12R) core spray sparger inspections. Specifically, this amendment proposed to utilize a visual inspection technique in accordance with the ASME Code Section XI, and to eliminate the requirement to docket inspection results and to obtain NRC restart authorizatiun for each refueling outage. GPUN's justification for the reqvest was based mainly on the positive results from the 1983 and 1986 inspections. The results of these inspections showed that no new crack indications were found in the spargers and associated piping and the repair clamp assemblies were intact.

Based on our review of GPUN's submittal, the staff has determined that GPUN's Technical Specification Change Request No. 169 should be denied because GPUN has not provided adequate justification to resolve the staff's concern over the long term behavior of the core spray sparger system. Enclosed is a Notice of Denial of Amendment To Provisional Operating License and Opportunity For Hearing which has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.  ;

It should be noted that the State of New Jersey, in their letter to the NRC dated July 21, 1986, recomended that NRC not grant the subject request.

Our denial is based on the following considerations

(1) During the 1978 and 1980 inspections, crack indications were found in de i spargers and annulus piping. The worst crack reported was a through wai' circemferential crack extending about halfway around an upper f oarger.

Ten clamp assemblies were installed as an interim repair. This repair is not a Code-approved repair and is acceptable only on.an interim basis. GPUN currently has no plan to replace these defective corponents. Therefore, for <

continued opuratiot, of the repaired core spray sparger system, we consider that NRC review and approval of the test methods and results during each refueling outage is necessary to ensure that the integrity of the repaired core spray sparger system is maintained during each cycle of operation.

I N005A $$$$$h.,

k PDC 4

1l L

fir. E. E. Fitzpatrick  ;

(2) Although the two latest inspections (1983 and 1986) did not find any new crocks in the core spray sparger system, there is no evidence that the driving forces for the crack initiation and propagation have been completely removed from the system. Tre residual stresses from welding, cold work and fit-up are usually corisidered as the main driving forces for the reported cracking. Since these driving forces may be still present, cracking would continue. Therefore, because of the uncertainties in the long term behavior of the repaired core spray sparger system, we require that the license condition as stipulated in t the license for the inspection of spargers and piping should be retained to ensure that there is no unacceptable degradation in the system.

(3) The licensee proposed to perform visual inspections in accordance with ASME Code,Section XI (VT-1 for spargers and VT-3 for piping) without tiRC review of the inspection method. The staff considers that this may not provide an adequate examination of the core spray sparger system. The staff requires that normal methods be used with resolution required by IE Bulletin 80-13. Staff review of the licensee's inspection methods is necessary to ensure that the method used for the inspection is adequate and to ensure meaningful comparisons of results with those from previous inspections can be made.

Sincerely, orieinal signed by ".onald Hernan for John F. Stolz, Director Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 Office of Nucleor Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

i As stated i

cc w/encloture: ,

See next page l l O!STRIBllT10ft Docket Fil E ADromerick NRC A Local PORs OGC (info. only)

Gray File EJordan, 3302 MNBB SVarga, 14/E/4 BGrimes, 9/A/2 BBoger,14/A!2 ACRS(10)

$Norris D: POI- OGC LL1 S s APM D{ '/Ack:bdJStelzi ri,y$/ 488

\*

10/p88 10/.//88

, 10/pB8 1 l M

. Mr. E. E. Fitzpatrick .

(2) Although the two latest inspections (1983 and 1986) did not find any new cracks in the core spray sparger system, there is no evidence that the driving forces for the crack initiation and propagation have been completely removed from the system. The residual stresses from welding, cold work and fit-up are usually considered as the main driving forces for the reported cracking. Since these driving forces may be still present, cracking would continue. Therefore, because of the uncertainties in the long term behavior of the repaired core spray sparger system, we require that the license condition as stipulated in the license for the inspection of spargers and piping should be retained to ensure that there is no unacceptable degradation in the system.

(3) The licensee proposed to perform visual inspections in accordance with ASME Ccde,Section XI (VT-1 for spargers and VT-3 for piping) without NRC review of the inspection method. The staff considers that this may not provide an adequate exemination of the core spray sparger system. The staff requires that normal methods be used with resolution required by IE Bulletin 80-13. Staff review of the licensee's inspection methods is necessary to ensure that the method used for the inspection is ,

adequate and to ensure meaningful comparisons of results with those from (

previous inspections can be made. I Sincerely, s 'M W T,Srin.

John F. Stolz, Director '

Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

l s

I k

g Mr. E. E. Fitzpatrick Oyr.ter Creek Nuclear '

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Generating Station cc:

Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U.S. NRC ,

2300 N Street, NW Post Office Box 44S Washington, D.C. 20037 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J.B. Liberman, Esquire Commissioner Bishop, Liberman, Cook, et al. New Jersey Department of Energy 1155 Avenue of the Americas 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10036 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Jennifer Moon, Acting Chief Regional Administr. ., Region I New Jersey Department of Environmental i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protection 475 Allendale Road Bureau of Nuclear Engineering King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 CN 415 Trenton, New .lersey 08625 BWR Licensing Manager .

GPU Nuclear Corporation 1 Upper Pond Road -

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ,

Mayor ,

Lacey Township <

1 818 West Lacey Road

Forked River, New Jersey 08731 1

Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station r Mail Stop: Site Emergency Bldg. ,

P. O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 ,

4 i i

I 1

t

\

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _