ML17194B672

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 830809 Meeting W/Util,Newport News Industrial, Impell,Chicago Bridge & Iron Co,Nutech,Tsi,Epri & ANI in Bethesda,Md Re Accelerated Scheduling Requirements Imposed Due to Insp of Cracking in Recirculation & RHR Piping
ML17194B672
Person / Time
Site: Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000
Issue date: 08/10/1983
From: Gilbert R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8308120015
Download: ML17194B672 (15)
v • d • e


Text

Docket BRB-* #5 Reading

.. 'R.': Gilbert

~ LICENSEE:

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (CECO)

FACILITY:

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Quad Citfes Statton. Unit 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9, 1983 NRC PDR Local PDR DCrutchfield OELD E.

Jord~n

NRC Participants NSIC The NRC staff held a meeting fn Bethesda, MarylandSwith representatives *of CECO and their consultants to discuss the fmplfcations of possfble accel-erated sche<lulfng requirements that could be imposed on the Units because of the need to inspect for cracking fn recfr~ulatfon and ~pf ping in BWR's. A 11st of attendees *fs provided in Enclosure 1 and an outline of the CECO presentation is provided in Enclosure 2.

After a brief staff introduction which fndfcated that f;!ihf s was not a

  • decision making meeting and that there was a Commission meeting scheduled August 24 or 25 9 1983 for that purpose, CECO made its presentation. -CECO stated that ft has been involved wfth the BWR Owners Group on the pipe cracking f ssue throughout and that ft fs considered not 100 be a safety issue. They indicated in the response to the 50.54(f) letter that they had made considerable schedule concessions by commft_ting to outage start dates for Quad 2 of Septenber 4, 1983 and for Dredden 3 of September 30, 1983. Their use of hydrogen addftfon at Dresden 2 as a possible mitigation step for arresting crack growth was pointed out as was the Induction Heating Strej"s Improvement {IHSI) program proposed for~e Dresden 3 ou,tage. They indicated that steps to develop a corporate strategy are underway and due to be completed bx the end of 1983. - The staff requested that,a summary of the strategy issues (replacement, repair, IHSI, H2 addf ti on) be provided soon ** Weld over la~ as a-.re~aJr P-r.ocedure_ was._

characterf zed By CECO as only goodCTorone cxcle atthis ti!lle ~ *.* *

]

The discussion then centeri"d on the fo~~1 f ssues:

1. The validity of the leak before break crfterfa.
2.

EPRI Round Robin and industry experience demonstrating that cracks can be detected.

3, Sister unit experi~nce a~d length of unit operation are important criteria.

4. Welds.which are shown by analysis to have greatest opportunity for crackin~ are obvious NOE candidates.
5. Evaluation of crack data (detection and sf zing)
  • -----------**.--*-----~
.-cy)93Q8120015 830810 i

su_. ~DR. ~DOC~ 05?00~~~ l. _ l ; j....................

  • ~ATE i. -::-::-:.:::'.~.... _,... -::.-::-................. ;:~*;::-:- --:-:-:.. -....'...............

NAC FCfRM 318 (10-80) NACM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

(,

~

  • ll
  • ... The 1 eakage surve111 ance pro.gram commf tted to by CE.CO on a 11 four unf ts a't Quad and Dresden and the fmpacOon CECO of accelerated outage schedules forqDresden 3 and Quad 2 were discussed. There was a df scussion of repuacement power costs and availability of oontractor inspection per-sonnel because of allowable dose restrictions.

CECO also fndf cated that decontamination of the relavent pfpfng at 03 and Q2 would be done to lower'personnel doses during NOE and needed repairs. The staff asked about the possibflfty of a "quick look" ff the units were down for other reasons.

EBco-indicated the dffffculty of thfs due to ~ers~o_n_n..o-el __ --.

avaflabflfty reasons but the staff indicated that thisjcommitment may be required and requested help with the fonnu[§tfon of a reasonable.*

requirement.

For this the staff asked that CECO produce a response document which covered the following fssues.

1-. Merits and methods of a "quick look".

2. Avaflabi11ty of required mitigation equipment fn case a pipe break occurs.

a

3. Eval uat.ion of the degree that operatoes are trafnEICf and qualiztted for ac~ident mftfgation.

CECO committed to produce such a document by Monday, August 15, 1983, at the latest and indicated that they-would like discussions with I&E on the qualification of NPE personnel!

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees*
2. Outline CEO:@presentatfon cc w/enclosures:

See next page Robert A. Gilbert, Pr6ject Manager Operating Reactors Branch HS Division of Licensing OFFICE. *~-~~-~

.... ~ ~~~W1ei"ci...... ~.~.~~******.............-...................................

SURNAME *.*** tn.~:.J............................ -~**********.................................................

DATE~.*** 616!.f.'9.'J......... a1..J.~1.ai......... ~J.c.~..J!}.:..." *................................................

NRCFORM318(10-80)NRCM0240

-OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-33&-960

Docket Nos.

50- 249 50- 265 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 August l 0, 1983 LICENSEE:

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (CECo)

FACILITY:

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Quad Cities Station, Unit 2 *

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9, 1983 The NRC staff held a meeting in Bethesda, Maryland with repres~ntatives of CECb and their consultants to discuss the implications of possible accel-erated scheduling requirements that could be imposed on the Units because of the need to inspect for cracking in recirculation and RHR piping in BWR's.

A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure l and an outline of the CECo presentation is provided in Enclosure 2.

After a brief staff introduction which indicated that this was not a decision making meeting and that there was a Commission meeting scheduled August 24 or 25, 1983 for that purpose, CECO made its presentation.

CECo stated that it has been involved with the BWR Owners Group on the pipe cracking issue throughout and that it is considered not to be a safety issue.

They indicated in the response to the 50.54(f) letter that they had made considerable schedule concessions by committi.ng to outage start dates for Quad 2 of September 4, 1983 and for Dresden 3 of September 30, 1983.

Their use of hydrogen addition at Dresden 2 as a possible mitigation step for arresting crack growth was pointed out as was the Induction Heating Stress Improvement (IHSI) program proposed for the Dresden 3 outage.

They indicated that steps to develop a corporate strategy are underway and due to be completed by the end of 1983.

The staff requested that a summary of the strategy issues (replacement, repair, !HSI, H2

  • addftion) be provided soon.. Weld overlay as a repair procedure was characteri.zed by CECo as only good for one cycle at this time.

The discussion then centered on the following issues:

l. The validity of the leak before break criteria.
2.

EPRI Round Robin and jndustry experience demonstrating that cracks can be detected.

3.

Sister unit experience and length of unit operation are important criteria.

4.

Welds which are shown by analysis to have greatest opportunity for cracking are obvious NOE candidates.

5.

Evaluation of crack data (detection and sizing)

Again CECo's co.nclusion was that there is no safety issue.

The staff indicated its belief that there may be no immediate safety issue.

. ! The leakage survei 11 ance program commHted to by CE Co on a 11 four units at Quad and Dresden and the impact on CECo of accelerated outage schedules for Dresden 3 and Quad 2 were discussed.

There was a discussion of replacement power costs and availability of contractor inspection per-sonnel because of allowable dose restrictions.

CECo also indicated that decontamination of the relavent piping at 03 and Q2 would be done to lower personnel doses during NOE and.needed repairs.

The staff asked about the possibility of a "quick look 11

. if the units were down for other reasons.

CECo indicated the difficulty of this due to personnel availability reasons but the staff indicated that this commitment may be required and requested h~lp with the formulation of a reasonable requirement.

For this the staff asked that CECo produce a response document which covered the following issues.

1. Merits and methods of a "quick look".
2.

Availability of required mitigation equipment in case a pipe break occurs.

3.

Evaluation of the degree that operators are trained and qualified for accident mitigation.

CECO committed to produce such a document by Monday, August 15, 1983, at the latest and indicated that they would like discussions with I&E on the qualification of NOE personnel.

Enclosures:

1 ~ List of Attendees

2.

Outline CECO presentation cc w/enclosures:

See next page

~~ *.

~~+ il -/~tJ--

Robert A. Gilbert, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing

~ *..

Mr. Dennis L. Farrar cc Isham, Lincoln & Beale

. Counselors at Law

  • One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor*

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Doug Scott Plant Superintendent Rura 1 Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station RR #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:

Regional Radiat~on Representative 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago,. Illinois 60604 James G. Keppler, Regional.Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 y

Enclosure LIST OF ATTENDEES Dresden Unit No. 3 Quad.Cities Unit 2 Meeting of August 9, 1983 NAME AFFILIATION T. Tesch ANI M. Ferrante ANI N. Edwards CECo.

J. Charnley CECo P. Buchholz CE Co (NUTECH)

s. Ranganath CECo (General Electric)

B. Rybak Commonwealth Edison L. Del George Commonwealth Edison

c. Reed Commonwealth Edison
0. Farrar Commonwealth Edison E. Zebus Commonwealth Edison T. Ci es 1 a Commonwealth Edison L. Gerner Commonwealth Edison W. Witt Commonwealth Edison J. Danko EPRI J. Berga EPRI J. McEwen, Jr.

TSI

v. Derr NUTE CH D. Rad ins Chicago,Bridge & Iron Co.

R. Gamble Impel 1 J. Dietrich CP&L L. Gifford GE J. Pendlebury GE B. Shiffler Newport News Industrial R. Bevan NRC R. Vollmer NRC D. Eisenhut NRC E. Case NRC R. Gilbert NRC H. Denton NRC D. Vassallo NRC B. Liaw NRC G. Lainas NRC J. Henderson NRC

w. Collins

. NRC K. Herring NRC P. Goldberg NRC

0. Bassett NRC G. Holahan NRC
v. Benaroya NRC
s. Schwartz NRC

~ "'::.*

~*.

~*.. *.-

?_~:

Attendees List cont. w. Kane NRC D. Crutchfield NRC H. Nicolaras NRC E. Brown NRC L. Wheeler NRC T. Alexion NRC J. Fouchard NRC F. Ingram NRC J. Olshinski NRC J. Zwolinski NRC J. Austin NRC D..Danielson NRC

{

OUTLINE o

JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION CITEMS 1 AND 2) o LEAKAGE MONITORING COMMITMENTS C ITEM 3).

o IMPACT OF ACCELERATED OUTAGE SCHEDULES C ITEMS 4 AND 5) o AVAILABILITY OF NDE PERSONNEL C ITEM 6)

SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS

~**

JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUNED OPERATIONS CITEMS 1 AND 22

  • . t o

LEAK BEFORE BREAK STILL VALID o

EXPERIENCE *tNDICATES THAT CRACKS CAN BE DETECTED INDUSTRY CECo o

QUAD CITIES 1 FOUND NO CRACKS filill DRESDEN 2 FOUND MINOR CRACKS ALL UNITS FABRICATED AND ERECTED BY SAME CONTRACTORS OPERATING TIMES ON DRESDEN 3 AND QUAD CITIES 2 ARE LESS THAN PREVIOUSLY INSPECTED UNITS UNIFORMLY GOOD CHEMISTRY WATER CONTROL ON ALL UNITS

JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATIONS CCONT'D)

CITEMS 1 AND 2) o EPRI ROUND ROBIN RESULTS DO NOT ALTER PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS CECo CONTRACTOR.EVALUATED PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS REEVALUATED PIPE CRACKING NOT A SAFETY ISSUE

~*. *.

DRESDEN 2 FLAW ASSESSMENT*.

.75 - -

~

.61--~--~~-+-~~~~--+~~~-1-.1--.+-~~--~-+-~~~~--'

0 -

a a:

Q.

~

o.o.__~~~--....... --~~~_..~~~~~._--------------~~__,

o.o

.2

.6

.8 1.0 CRQCK LENGTH RATIO l/12*PJ*Rl m..LOWQBLE rL~ PAAQMET(~~ - ~CONDITIONS -

Ptt

  • PB : 1.0 CURVE A SAFETY FACTOR OF 1
  • CURVE B Code safety factor.

of 2.8

PRIMARY SYSTEM LEAKAGE SURVEILLANCE

<ITEM 3)

HAVE IMPOSED THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS FOR DRESDEN UNIT 3 AND QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 o FLOOR DRAIN LEAKAGE SHALL BE MEASURED ONCE EVERY 4 HOURS WHEN THE REACTOR IS AT OPERATING PRESSURE o IF*UNIDENTIFIED FLOOR DRAIN LEAKAGE INCREASES BY 1 GPM DURING ANY 4 HOUR PERIOD. OR EQUALS 3 GPM TOTAL,.

ACTION WILL BE TAKEN TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE LEAKAGE o IF UNIDENTIFIED FLOOR DRAIN LEAKAGE INCREASES TO 4 GPM TOTAL OR 2 GPM OVER THE PREVIOUS 24.

HOURS A SHUTDOWN WILL BE INITIATED TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF LEAKAGE

  • ~

r*

~ *.

~*..

IMPACT OF ACCELERAT~D OUTAGE SCH~DULES C ITEMS 4 AND. 5)

ORIGINAL OUTAGE SCHEDULE f

DRESDEN 3 - OCTOBER 24, 1983

  • QUAD CITIES 2 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 AUGUST 15, 1983 - STARI-DATE FOR BOTH UNITS QUAD CITIES 2 - OUTAGE IS LENG~HENED BY TWO WEEKS TO 13 WEEKS DRESDEN 3 -

WOULD PERFORM SIX WEEK l~SPECTION FIRST FOLLOWED BY ITS REFUELING OUTAGE 10/24/83 SEPTEMBER 15, 1983 FOR DRESDEN UNIT 3j SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 FOR QUAD CITIES 2 DRESDEN 3 - OUTAGE LENGTHENED BY TWO WEEKS TO 18 WEEKS TOTAL COST OF $10,568,000 SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 FOR DRESDEN UNIT 3; SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 FOR QUAD CITIES 2 DRESDEN 3 - OUTAGE IS 16 WEEKS

- 50/50 CHANCE OF EXTENDING THE OUTAGE

- TOTAL COST OF $2,345,QQQ OCTOBER 15, 1983 FOR DRESDEN UNIT 3; SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 FOR QUAD CITIES 2 MINIMAL EFFECT

REFERENCE:

ATTACHMENT D OF AUGUST 1, 1983 CECo LETTER

..J...

~.

I>

NDE PERSONNEL.REQUIREMENTS

<ITEM 6)

BASE~ON 2 REM EXPOSURE PER QUARTER; 5 REM TOTAL FOR THE YEAR LAMBERT, MCGILL AND THOMAS' <LMT) POOL - 108.7 - MAN-REM 'FOR 3Ro QUARTER

<ASSUMPTIONS PER ATTACHMENT F OF AUGUST 1, 1983 CECo CENTER)

BOTH UNITS - AUGUST 15rH.

BEYOND LMTs CAPACITY

  • 65.3 - MAN-REM 4TH QUARTER 174.0 - MAN-REM - TOTAL AVAILABLE QUAD CITIES 2, SEPTEMBER 4rH ~ DRESDEN 3*, SEPTEMBER l5IH

. NO CRACKS - SLIGHTLY BEYOND LMTs CAPACITY EXPANDED SAMPLE - BEYOND LMTs CAPACITY QUAD CITIES 2, SEPTEMBER 4rH - DRESDEN 3, SEPTEMBER 30rH OR LATER ASSUMES DECON AT DRESDEN 3 *

[

WITHIN LMTs CAPACITY NO CRACKING AT QUAD CITIES 2.

EXPANDED SAMPLE AT QUAD CITIES 2 - NEED DECON

- WITHIN LMis CAPACITY

-~* "":":.

~~ **

~

' -*.. ~

.6.

  • ~

. -- ~.

SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS

  • . /'

o NOT SAFETY ISSUE LEAK BEFORE BREAK SISTER UNIT EXPERIENCE o

LEAKAGE MONITORING COMMITMENTS INCREASED FREQUENCY

-

  • LOWER THRESHOLD o

ACCELERATED OUTAGE SCHEDULE QUAD CITIES 2... AUGUST 15rH + 20 DAYS DRESDEN 3. I.AUGUST 15TH + 46 DAYS NEGATIVES ASSOCIATED WITH FURTHER ACCELERATION

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17194B672&oldid=5130062"