ML20207B092
| ML20207B092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Donohew J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-61062, NUDOCS 8607170413 | |
| Download: ML20207B092 (5) | |
Text
.
jq 111986 Docket No. 50-219 DISTRIBUTION:
aDocket F.ije.
J.Partlow Mr. P. R. Fiedler NRC POR J.Donohew Vice President and Director local PDR C.Jamerson Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station BWD1 Rdg ACRS (10)
Post Office Box 388 R. Bernero W.Hodges Forked River, New Jersey 08731 OGC (info only) Zwolinski E. Jordan OC File
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
R. Grimes
SUBJECT:
R0D WORTH MINIMIZER - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC 61062, TSCR 145)
Re:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station In your letter dated March 11, 1986, you requested a temporary change to the Oyster Creek Appendix A Technical Specifications. This change would allow unlimited startups of Oyster Creek with an inoperable rod worth minimizer (PWM) only during the upcoming Operating Cycle 11. This is Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No. 145.
The staff is reviewing the TSCR and finds that it needs additional information to complete its review. Questions detailing this needed information are enclosed and must be responded to before the review can continue.
You are requested to provide the additional information by August 15, 1986, so that the staff may complete its evaluation by the date you requested in your letter (i.e., October 1,1986). A telecopy of the enclosed questions was sent to Mr. M. Laggart of GPU Nuclear (GPUN) and discussed by telephone with him on June 30, 1986. The response date has been aareed to by Mr. Laggart.
If it is desired, a meeting with the staff will be arranged on a mutually convenient schedule to discuss the enclosed questions.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L. 96_511.
1 S
erely ac N. Dono ew,
., Pro.iect Manager (BWRPro.iectDirec rate #1 Division of RWR Licensing
Enclosure:
Pequest for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page OFC : DBL:PD#1
- DB 1
DBL:PD#1 L___:
NAME :CJamerson
- J 1
- JZwolinski
- ___6/86
- 07/S/86 DATE :07/10/86
- 07/
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
)
8607170413 860711 PDR ADOCK 05000219
~'
JUN 11 1986 Docket No. 50-219 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File J.Partlow Mr. P. B. Fiedler NRC PDR J.Donohew Vice President and Director Local PDR C.Jamerson Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station RWD1 Rdg ACRS (101 Post Office Box 388 R. Bernero V.Hodges Forked River, New Jersey '08731 OGC (info only) Zwolinski E. Jordan OC File
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
R. Grimes
SUBJECT:
R0D WORTH MINIMIZER - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC 61062, TSCR 145)
Re:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station In your letter dated March 11, 1986, you requested a temporary change to the Oyster Creek Appendix A Technical Specifications. This change would allow unlimited startups of Oyster Creek with an inoperable rod worth minimizer (RWM) only during the upcoming Operating Cycle 11. This is Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No. 145.
The staff ic reviewing the TSCR and finds that it needs additional information to complete its review. Questions detailing this needed information are enclosed and must be responded to before the review can continue.
You are requested to provide the additional information by August 15, 1986, so that the staff may complete its evaluation by the date you requested in your letter (i.e., October 1,1986). A telecopy of the enclosed questions was sent to Mr. M. Laoaart of GPU Nuclear (GPUN) and discussed by telephone with him on June 30, 1986. The response date has been aareed to by Mr. Laggart.
If it is desired, a meeting with the staff will be arranged on a mutually convenient schedule to discuss the enclosed questions.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L. 96 511.
1 S
erely ack N. Dono ew,
., Proiect Manager RWR Pro.iect Direc ] rate #1 Division of RWR Licensing
Enclosure:
Pequest for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page kbE Chaerson b
oh ATE :07/10/86
- 07/ /86
- 07/N/86 FF C LR RD PY 4
Mr. P. B. Fiedler Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station cc:
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U.S. NRC 1800 M Street, N.W.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, D.C.
20036 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 Eugene Fisher, Assistant Director Pegional Administrator, Region I Division of Environmental Quality U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Departnent of Environmental 631 Park Avenue Protection King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 i
BWR Licensing Manager GPU Nuclear 100 Interpace Parkway 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 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 i
D. G. Holland Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Rox 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 i
h
)
l 1
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE FOR THE ROD WORTH MINIMIZER FOR OYSTER CREEK GPU Nuclear has proposed in a letter dated March 11, 1986, that the Technical Specifications relating to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Rod Worth Minimizer (RbH) be changed, primarily to allow an additional time frame (in Cycle 11) in which operation is permitted without the RhH operational.
The staff review of the proposal has indicated the need for additional information. The staff viewpoint and concern relevant to the proposal and the 3
needed additional information is provided in the following discussion.
In the 1972 - 1975 era when stricter Technical Specifications (TS) on RWM operability and use were introduced for reactors not being equipped with a Rod Sequence Control System, it was in part because of the staff perception that the previous effectiveness of the RWM was minimal since (a.) little effort was expended in maintaining or improving RWM operability and capability, and the second operator substitution was becoming a frequent and routine occurrence and (b.) the second operator was providing relatively little reduction in error probability because of poor procedures and quality control of the monitoring operations.
Since that time the RMW TS operability requirements appear to have resulted in greatly improving the availability of the RWM, and thus any proposed reduction in required operability is viewed with reluctance by the staff. Therefore, it is the staff position that deviation from present TS requirements should be kept to a minimum.
In particular, deviations due to planned computer downtime (e.g., computer changeover) should not extend beyond necessary intervals and
~
~
.. required TS changes should contain or be accompanied by statements which clearly delineate (time) limits on deviations.
Furthermore, the changes should be accompanied by increased attention to the problems associated with the effectiveness of the additional operators in the process or error reduction.
Failures of the second operator to halt error processes which have occurred over the years (e.g., most recently March 18, 1986, the incident at Peach B.ottom 3) have demonstrated a need to further assure the second operator effectiveness.
It is therefore, requested (a.) that you add to the Bases of Specification 3.2 a brief statement that tha operating time frame in Cycle 11 without a RWM will l
be kept to a minimum compatible with the changeover, (b.) that you review, and where needed improve your procedures and related forms, physical setup and quality control to assure that the second operator provides an effective and truly independent monitoring of the control rod movements and (c.) that you provide the staff with a description of this review and resulting procedure.
It should be noted for your review that the Template system can receive only partial credit at best. High worth error rods can exist beyond the 50 percent density region as well as before. NRC reviews of such proposed systems in the 1972-1975 era did not lead to approvals as alternate systems. Thus the procedures review should not emphasize this aspect.
_