ML20247M016
| ML20247M016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247M014 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8906020325 | |
| Download: ML20247M016 (3) | |
Text
- _
[( g(['k UNITED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,,
W j W ASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 f
%s j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.133 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated September 5,1986, the NRC requested GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/ licensee) to revise the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications (TS) concerning the reactor coolant system leakage. The request was made to comply with items B, C, and E of Attachment 1 to Generic Letter (GL) 84-11.
In response to this request, the licensee submitted letters dated February 4, 1987 and March 17, 1987. Briefly, GPUN indicated that item B would be met. The leakape would be monitored to assure that the maximum increase in unidentified leakage would not exceed ? gpm within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. This would be incorporated into the TS. However, the remaining two issues were believed by GPUN to be adequately addressed by the existing TS. Therefore, no further TS changes were recommended by the licensee. Rather, justification was provided to show why additional TS changes were not necessary.
Item C of GL 84-11 suggested that the maximum outage time for inoperable leakage measurement instruments associated with each sump be limited by TS to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. GPUN provided operating procedures put into effect when the instrument would be inoperable that they believed would justify inoperability times of 7 deys rather than the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Seven days is the current TS LCO.
Item E of GL 84-11 called for visual examinations for leakage of the reactor coolant piping be performed during each outage. The licensee showed that the existing TS 4.3d currently calls for a visual examination for leaks with the reactor coolant system at pressure during each scheduled refueling outage or after major repairs have been made to the reactor coolant system. The difference between GL 84-11 and the current TS being the interpretation of
" outage". GL 84-11, if taken literally, would indicate that any time the drywell is deinerted during a shutdown, an examination would be required. The existing TS and the GPUN position is that the intent of GL 84-11 is met if
" outage" is interpreted to mean " refueling outage". Therefore, no revisions to the TS are necessary.
h$0NObbkb P
l l
l
_-_-__-__-_____A
-?-
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposed TS to limit the leakage increase within a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period to 2 gpm meets the literal meaning of item B of Attachment I to GL 84-11. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed TS change acceptable.
l The intent of item C of GL 84-11 is to limit the outage time of critical
{
leakage instrumentation to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The GPUN submittal showed that whenever a critical instrument is inoperable, alternate procedures would be activated.
)
These procedures would require leak rate measurements to be performed every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. Calculations would then be performed to determine the leak rate which would be recorded every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
This procedure would be followed for up to 7 days.
If the instrument was not repaired within 7 days, the reactor would be taken to a cold shutdown in an orderly manner.
The staff having reviewed the above procedures, has concluded that the alternate procedures adequately compensate for the increased time for continued power operation with inoperable instrumentation. The conclusion is based on the belief that equilivant measurements will be obtained at 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> intervals.
In other words, the measurement interval is changed from near continuous to every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. This appears to be an acceptable modification to allow the inoperable time to increase from the recommended 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 7 days.
The final GL 84-11 item addressed by the licensee submittals is the frequency that visual examinations for leaks shall be made with the reactor coolant system at pressure.
GPUN has interpreted the required frequency to mean each refueling' outage.
If taken literally, the staff's requirement would mean that each shutdown resulting in a deinerted drywell would require a visual examination.
The staff believes that the licensee's interpretation meets the intent of the generic letter. There are instances when the drywell would be deinerted for i
only a short period of time; such as during a quick repair. The letter was not intended to require a unique inspection for these types of maintenance l
shutdowns. Rather, the intent was to institute a visual inspection program at l
regular intervals so that slowly growing cracks would be detected. Therefore, the staff finds the licensee's interpretation acceptable and additional TS changes unnecessary.
Based on the rationale discussed above, the staff finds the licensee's l
proposed TS changes acceptable. Also, the justification provided by the l
licensee to preclude further TS changes is acceptable.
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 l
10 CFR Part 20. We have determined that the amendment involves no l
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i
l
.~
]
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 i
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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) 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 l
common defense and sacurity nor to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
May 23, 1989 I
Principal Contributor:
J. Kudrick i
)
l i