ML20245F124
| ML20245F124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245F094 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905020264 | |
| Download: ML20245F124 (5) | |
Text
____._ - - _ -. - - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
i sMutuq#*g a.
- i ; [
.g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES L
- l WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.132 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-?!9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 25, 1986, February 19, October 13 and November 16, 1988, and January 12, 1989, GPU Nuclear Corporation, the licensee for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, proposed changes to the plant Technical Specifi-cations'(TS), Sections 3.5.A.3 and 4.5 and:the corresponding basis for containment. leak rate testing. The licensee also requested an exemption from 1
Appendix J,Section III.A.3 to allow it to utilize the mass-plot calculation method as specified in ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981 in lieu of the point-to-point or total time method specified in ANSI N45.4-1972. The above exemption reauest I
has been granted by the NRC in a letter dated May 9, 1988. Since then the NRC 1
has amended Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, dated November 15, 1988 which permits I.
the.use of the mass-plot calculational method (S3 FR.45890).
The changes to Section 4.5 for containment system leak rate testing reflect the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50. This revision also includes adminis-trative changes to caragraph numbers as necessary to correct inconsistencies caused by this and previous revisions and typographical errors.
2.0 EVALUATION The'TS changes address the prooram which verifies that the leakage from the Primary Containment, both integrated and local, is maintained within the specific values as outlined in Appendix J of 10 CFR 50. The major changes are as fo~1ows:
Section 3.5.A - The licensee has added step 3.5.A.3.b to 3.5.A.3 to create an additionaT limiting condition for operation (LCO) concerning drywell operability per TS Section 4.5.E.
The staff has reviewed the added LCO and finds it acceptable.
Section 4.5 - The licensee has modified the applicability and objectives paragraphs to list the major system surveillance and tests described in this section and to refer to Appendix J ef 10 CFR 50 for containment leak-dge valves. These are administrative changes and therefore acceptable.
8905020264 890424 p#
PDR ADOCK 05000219
.. P PNU
)
y c
{
, i L
1 Section 4.5.A - Type A Primary Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test I
(PCILRT) - The licensee has deleted pre-operational testing f rom Ste) 1 as it applies to initial (pre-startup). testing of the containment and t1ere-fore no longer relevant; The licensee has also modified Step 2.and 3.
Part of Step 2 and Step 3 are moved to Section 4.5.C.
Step 4 has remained essentially intact and renumbered as Step 2. -These are administrative changes and therefore acceptable.
The licensee has added Step 3 'and 4 Step 3 establishes a stabilization period of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> prior'to beginning the PCILRT and Step 4 establishes a verification test to confirm calibration of instruments. The stabiliza-tion period and the verification test for calibration of instruments are i
in accordance with Appendix J,Section III.A.1(c) and III.A.3(b) and therefore acceptable.
Step 5 retains the test duration requirements. Step 6 is added to reflect
-r j
the requirements of Appendix J Section V.A. for general inspection of the l
accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment and therefore acceptable.
Section 4.5.B Acceptance Criteria - Step 1 for maximum allowable leak rate I
remains essentially unchanged with minor subscript changes to parallel variables _used in Appendix J.
Step 2 and Step 3 are modified to reflect the applicable standard. These are administrative changes and therefore acceptable.
The licensee has added Step 4 to establish an acceptance criteria for verification test in accordance with Section III.A.3(b) of Appendix J and therefore acceptable.
Section 4.5.C Corrective Action - The licensee has changed this section to give detailed options as to what may be done to limit leakage during the PCILRT. Step 1.a allows for repairs and local testing of the repairs.
It also allows for'the recommencement of the PCILRT without the required stabilization period if the containment was not depressurized. These i
changes reflect compliance with Appendix J,Section III.A.1(a) and there-fore acceptable.
Step 1.b is essentially unchanged. Step 2 is deleted. The licensee originally indicated Step 2 was based on specification 4.5.A.3.
On review, the staff concluded that deduction of local leak rate results from the PCILRT results is not conservative. The staff discussed this issue with the 11 ensee in a conference call on September 20, 1988. The licensee agr> ' nsith the staff and proposed deletion of Step 2 in a letter dated Octoser 13, 1988.- Deletion of Step 2 is in accordance with Appendix J and therefore acceptable.
Section 4.5.D Frequency - The licensee has deleted the first section con-cerning testing.during the first refueling as no longer relevant. This is consistent with change in Section 4.5.A and therefore acceptable. The remainder of this section is modified to reflect the testing frequency of three times within each ten year service period as imposed by Appendix J, Section Ill D.1(a) and for(b)o consecutive periodic Type A tests as tw imposedby$ectionIII.A.6 and therefore acceptable.
(
... Section 4.5.E-Type "B" and "C" Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRT) - Steps 1, 3 and 4 are taken apart ano rearranged as Steps 1 through 4 with the addi-tion of a requirement to use normal valve closures. Use of normal valve closure is consistent with Appendix J,Section III.A.1(b) and therefore I
acceptable.
The licensee has rearranged Step 2 as Step 5 and expanded it to define operability of the drywell airlock by proposing testing as follows:
j In Step 5.a the licensee proposed that the airlock must be tested at I
j least once within a 6 period month at an internal pressure of not less i
Appendix (J,SectionIII.D.2.b.35 psig). This is acceptable as it meets the req than P The licensee proposed exceptions to testing at P, in Steps 5.a.1, 5.a.2 and 5.a.3.
In Step 5.a.1 the licensee initially proposed that if there have been no airlock openings since the last successful test at P the test pressure may be reduced to 10 psig for the next 6 month test.,,This being a deviation to Appendix J, was not acceptable without an exemption request and its evaluation. The staff discussed this issue with the licensee in a confer-ence call on November 7, 1988.
By letter dated November 16, 1988, the licensee deleted the proposed Step 5.a.1 which is acceptable.
4 In Step 5.a.2, the licensee proposed that if the airlock is opened when the containment integrity is required, it must be tested within 3 days.
If the airlock is opened more frequently than once every 3 days during the period of frequent openings, then intermediate testing at least once every 3 days may be accomplished at 10 psig. The reduced pressure test-ing may not be substituted for the full pressure testing requirements of the airlock in Step 5.a.
This intermediate pressure testing at 10 psig as stated above was determined by the staff to be acceptable pursuant to Technical Evaluation Report #TER-C5257-36 " Containment Leakage Rate Test-ing" in a letter dated March 4,1982 and is allowed by Appendix J, Sec-tionIII.D.2.b(iii). Therefore, proposed testing in Step 5.a.2 is acceptable.
In Step 5.a.(3), the licensee proposed that if the airlock is opened during a period when containment integrity is not required, it need not be tested, but must be tested at P prior to returning the reactor to an operating mode requiring containm$nt integrity. This meets the requirements of Appendix J,Section III.D.2.b(ii) and is therefore acceptable.
4.5.F Acceptance Criteria - The heading of this section is changed from
" corrective Action" to " Acceptance Criteria". This is an administrative change and therefore acceptable.
Step 1 establishes the acceptance limits of combined leakage rate of potential flow paths subject to type B and type C tests according to Appendix J,Section III.B.3 and C.3 and is therefore acceptable.
Step 2 maintains the established leakage rate limits for MSIVs at Oyster Creek and is, therefore acceptable.
4 3
.i q
l~
~
. l 1
' Step 3 establishes the acceptance limit of drywell airlock leakage not to I
exceed 5% of the. allowable leakage rate (la) as measured or adjusted to Pa. This leakage rate limit is indicated in licensee's letter dated' January 12,1989 to meet the requirements of Appendix J,Section III.D.2.
l The staff. finds this leakage rate limit acceptable.
Step 4 ' includes the approved method for adjusting the drywell airlock leakage rate when tested at 10 psig per staff evaluation dated March 4,
~ 1982 pursuant to TER-C5257-36 " Containment Leakage Rate Testing". There-fore, this is acceptable.
Section 4.5.G Frequency - The original specification 4.5.G is moved to 4.5.H..-The licensee has added new specification 4.5.G which states that the local leak rate tests shall in no case exceed an interval of 24 months.
This meets the requirements of Appendix J,Section III.D.3 and therefore acceptable.
y Section 4.5.H. I, J, K and L - The licensee has renumbered 4.5.G. H, I, 0, and K in the present specification to 4.5.H, I, Je K and'L in the proposed specification. Present specification L which shows deleted is omitted in the proposed revision. The licensee has also corrected some typographical errors in Sections 4.5.5.4.b, 4.5.5.5.b(3) and 4.5.Q.1.a.
These are administrative changes and therefore acceptable.
Section 4.5. BasisL-The licensee has revised Section 4.5 basis to elimi-nate. reference to the preoperational containment test pressures as no longer' applicable. This is consistent with other proposed changes and therefore acceptable.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the licensee proposed changes to plant TS Sections 3.5.3, 4.5 and the corresponding basis for con-tainment leak rate testing reflects compliance with Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 and other proposed administrative changes are acceptable.
i
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have determined that the amendment 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 signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The staff has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves'no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility Pursuant to 10 CFR 51'.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
_ - _ _ _ - - - _ - _.. - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - -
L min f
i m';;....
5 L-4.0 t0NCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 24, 1989 Principal Contributor: R. Goel l
-