ML20206D271
| ML20206D271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1988 |
| From: | Dromerick A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206D253 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811170030 | |
| Download: ML20206D271 (4) | |
Text
,. .. . .
',t
, 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION 0.N,g JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-219 OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION NOTICE OF DENIAL OF AMEN 0 MENT TO
$0VIS10NALOPERATINGLICENSEANDOPPORTUNITYFORHEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossnission (the Cossnission) has denied a request by GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/ licensee) for an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16, issued to the licensee for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Notice of Consid, ration of Issuance of Amendment to Provisict.s1 Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 13, 1988 (53FR22062).
The purpose of the licensee's amendment requer,t was to (1) amend paragraph 2.C(7) of Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 to eliminate the requirement fcr the docketing of inspection results related to the core spray spargers, andobtainNRCrestartauthorizationforeachrefuelingoutage,(2) eliminate the submittal of a special report presenting ce results of inservice inspection of the core spary spargers during each refueling ou'.sge, and (1) pmpose visual inspections of accessible surfaces in accordance with ASME tode, Section 7;.
The staff has denied tha licensee's request bacause the licensee has not provided adequate justification to resolve the staff's concern over the long term tchavior of the core spray sparger system. Our denial is based on the following considerations:
081117ooso gogg37
{DR ADOCK 0500o219 PDC
, (1) During the 1978 and 1980 inspections, crack indications were found in the spargers and annulus piping. The worst crack reported was a through wall circumferential crack extending about halfway around an upper sparger.
Ten clamp assemblies were installed as an interim repair. This repair is not a Code-approved repair and is acceptable onic on an interim basis.
GpVN currently has no plan to replace these defective components.
Therefore, for contirued operation of the repaired core spray sparger W
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 spre eparger system is maintained during each cycle of operation.
(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, j 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 i
uncertainties in the long term behavior of the repaired core spray l
sparger system, we require that the license condition as stipulated in the lir.ense for the inspection of spargers and piping should be retained to ensure that there is no unacceptabla degradation in.the s,vstem.
l l
a ; ,
, (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 NRC
, review of the inspection method. The staff considers that this may not provide an adequate examinathn of the core spray sparger system. The i i
staff requires that normal methods be used with resolution required by i 1E Bulletin 80-13. Stafi 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
The licensee was notified of the Comission's denial of the proposed amendment change by letter dated November 7 , 1988. ,
- t By December 19, 1988, the licensee may demand a hearh g with respect
{ to dental described above and any person whose interest may be affected by i this proceeding svy f',le a written petition for leave to intervene.
! A request for a hearing or a petitiJn for leave to intervene must be filed
, with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L f Street, NW, Washington, DC, by the above date.
(
A copy of any petition should also be sent to the Office of the General f
Counsel Rockville, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555 and !
to Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. !
- Forfurtherdetahswithrespecttothisaction,see(1)theapplication
! (
for amendment dated May 13,1988, and (2) the Comission's letter ti the r
- licensee dated November 7 , 1988. !
i t
[ .. ._ .
l
F 4
These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20555, and at the Ocean County Libra:y, Reference Departrent,101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753. A copy of item (2) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Document Control Desk.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of November 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWif5510N s ) f h & L444C Alexander W. Dromerick, Project Manager Project Directorate 1 4 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
I i
~