ML19281A743
| ML19281A743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281A742 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 7904040068 | |
| Download: ML19281A743 (23) | |
Text
mte 101 220 tomething entirely different, don't I?
j MR. MORRISON:
Well, I wouldn't think it would be 2
9 3
entirely different.
I think there's some standardization.
(
DR. SIESS:
It's a different pair of valves I have to 3
w rk on, or can they write a procedure that says:
Close the 5
in-board isolation valve, open the out-board isolation valve, i
6 i
et cetera.
I don't think you would permit that, because the 7
guy would close and o' pen the wrong valves, he'd be testing the 8
wrong thing.
9 I
10 lI MR. RAY:
He might also scram reactor.
11 MR. MORRISON:
If they're smart, each valve can have i
I' i
12 i a series, so it's the A valve or the B valve, so they could 13 write a standard procedure.
They could then refer to the dif-(
14 ferent penetrations.
DR. SIESS:
Until they got one of the numbers wrong, 15 16 and then they'd louse it up, and you can het there's one that's j7, wrong.
i i
18 Well, I will still try to get back to the " specific" I
l 19 and the " implementing", as to whether there is a difference.
I !
I I
20 ) think you understand the problem.
I MR. MILHOAN:
We can do it.
21 I
22 l DR. SIESS:
And this is the fourth comment guide.
l l
MR. MILHOAN:
We can rewrite that particular section, l 23 !
l 24 if it isn't clear what the intent is.
AcsJederW Reoorters, Inc.
DR. SIESS-Just be sure you know what the intent is.
25 i 7904040063
221 mte.102 1
Okay.
Page 19, we added " core physics surveillance".
2 That was the different words for " heat balance flux monitor i
I 3l callibrations".
(
4 DR. ETHERINGTON:
But it isn't the same thing.
5 DR. SIESS:
I think they said it was going to be more.l 6
DR. ETHERINGTON:
It is more, but it omits any l
I I
7j implication that the heat balance is involved.
l 8
DR. SIESS:
That's only examples, Harold.
9 DR. ETHERINGTON:
I would have got core physics as monitoring flux distribution.
But an absolute callibration does!
10 i 11 require the heat balance, and I think you ought to keep power l
12 callibration in some fashion in there, if that is intended.
i 13 MR. RAY:
It's interesting, under the boiling water I
14 reactors on the next page, they replace " heat balance" with j
i I
15 just those words:
" core physics surveillance".
16 DR. SIESS:
I assume that Item E of the impact 17 lassessment addresses a couple of changes we're talking about, i
1 18 this one and the one on the next page.
It says:
"The change i
19 will be made to more truly specify the need to establish l
20 lprocedures which cover all aspects of reactor engineering i
21 surveillance.
Expansion of these procedures would provide l
22 additional guidance to the industry."
l 23 i Now, does replacing " heat balance flux monitor i
24 l ca] ibrations" by " core physics surveillance" more clearly Ace-Feceret Recorters, Inc.
25 specify the need?
i i
i
222 mte'103 j
MR. SCARBROUGH:
It expands the coverage.
The reason 2! stated that the heat balance flux monitor callibration wasn't I
i 3 i sufficient total test and additional ones were necessary for l
t l
4 their inspections.
So they requested " core physics surveillance' 5
would better encompass the items not included when you say just i
6i " heat balance" --
7 DR. ETHERINGTON:
For anyone who knows what they want a
to include under the term, that's t' rue.
But anybody else 9
picking it up wouldn't be thinking primarily of the heat i
10 ' balance.
I I
11 l DR. SIESS:
That's right.
I don't think it's more 12 ' clearly specifying anything.
More clearly specifying would have 13 been to add all the other things in here.
14 DR. ETHERINGTON:
I don't object to " core physics t
15 lsurveillance", but I think the idea of power callibration ought I
16 to come in.
17l DR. SIESS:
What Mr. Etherington just said was, if I
l 18 you know what you're doing, this won't hurt you, and if you j
i 19 l don't know what you're doing, this won't help you.
And that's 20 the very que: tion I have got about this laundry list:
If it's j
i 21 ll in the tech specs you're going to do it; and if you don't know l
l 22 what you're doing, this list is not going to help.
23 1 MR. BENDER.
It's just lik e the list, the laundry list 24, you provide when you take it to the larndry.
They wash what's l
Ace-fecerse Rooorters, Inc.
25 in the bag.
i
223 i
mte 104 1
DR. SIESS:
It also answers my question that aach one 2l of these can encompass a whole series of tests and procedures.
3l Well, think about it.
(~%
l 4l Also, under the SWRs there was just heat balance, and i
5! that was the same thing as it was for the PWRs; just different 6
wording.
W on page 20..
l l
1 7l Okay, on page 21, let's see.
Before that read:
8l " Skills normally possessed by qualified maintenance personnel i
l l
9 may not require' detailed step-by-step delineation in a procedure.j" 10 Right?
11 MR. MORRISON:
Right.
I 12 DR. SIESS:
And now that has been mcdified to say thatr
("N 13
" Routine maintenance activities that require such skills may 14 not require it, but should be subject to general administrative 15 procedural controls."
Okay.
16 What about skills normally possessed -- I'm sorry, it j 17 ' was maintenance always, wasn't it?
l i
18 MR. MILHCAN:
That's right, this was in the maintenance i
19 section.
l l
20 '
DR. SIESS; Does " maintenance" in front of " personnel"l i
21 ' have to be there, since;you now define " routine maintenance 22 activities"?
23!
MR. MILHOAN:
No, it can be deleted.
24,
DR. SIESS:
If they're qualified personnel, it doesn't Ac..;.eer i a.conm, inc.,
25 ! make any difference whether they're maintenance personnel.
If i
224 mte 105' jl 'a plant supervisor went down to do a maintenance job --
'l 2
MR. MILHOAN:
We can delete that.
3 DR. SIESS:
It's a minor point.
Now, the real trick there is to try Paragraph E in thi 4
i i
5 section.
i 6l On page 22, editorial -- no, I've got a note that says I
7l it's substantive.
Oh, yes, it is.
Before it was "the following; i,
activities", and now it is some examples.
Okay.
That's all 8
I 9l right.
I i
jo t There's a change in line 20, 22 and 25.
You know, I
l i
11 that's an interesting change.
You had "should include i
12 - information" on it, and you changed it to "should address".
I 13 Is there a difference?
" Include information on" was a lot more
~
14 specific than " address".
f i
15 MR. SCARSROUGH:
That was just editorial.
l l
!!6 DR. SIESS:
It's editorial in the wrong direction.
I 17 l On page 23, the Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been added.
ja Apparently, there was a need for that.
l i
19 {
DR. ETHERINGTON:
5 doesn't read quite right, does it?;
\\
I 20 l " Method for identification of post-maintenance testing to
,I i
21 [l assure return of system equipment to ncrmal", or something like 1
22 that.
DR. SIESS:
Thers's something missing after the comma.
2 3 ',
w' 24 MR. SCARBROUGH:
Yes, sir.
We can pick it up.
Ace-Foceral Rooorters, Inc.
25 l DR. SIESS:
I suspect your machine dropped a line.
i i
t a
225 tte 106 i
1 At the bottom of page 23, this material about chemical 2
reagents, what is that?
3 MR. BENDER:
I think the use of the word " addressed" l
(_
in this particular case is really a poor selection.
4 DR. SIESS:
Anything else, gentlemen?
Does the 5j 6; Committee approve this going out for comment, for further l
I I
7 comment?
g; So approved.
9l MR. QUITTSCHREIBER:
The staff tells me these things i
10, cost $16 a copy.
Unless you plan to work on them again, they 11 will take them back.
12 l (Documents collected and returned to Mr. Milhoan.)
13 DR. SIESS:
The only way they finance their standard-k/
l 14 l writing activity is by selling standards.
It'd cost a lot of i
l i
15 ! money to write standards.
l 16,
MR. BENDER:
Scme people that sell things like that l
l 17 have an understanding with the agency:
If you buy so many 3
18 copies, they'll give you the freedom to reproduce a certain i
19 number more.
There's some advantage in working out an agreement!
i i
l i
20 like that.
l i
21 l DR. SIESS:
The next guide we have to review is i
22 l Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1,
" Fuel Oil System for Standby!
l
_)
23 i Diesel Generators."
This has been out for comment.
There have 24 been a fair number of comments received and responded to.
This Ace-Feceret Rooorters, Inc.
25 does endorse a standard, ANSI N-195-1976 and, with some l
I
226
,mte 107 I
1 modifications or exceptions, the introduction and discussion j
2 has not been changed.
Regulatory position has been changed in l
i 3{ a number of places, in response to comments.
And there are a l
(~'
l l
4l number of comments that we received that will not produce any l
l 5! changes.
i 6!
Implementation has been put in the standard form as a i
7i Category 2 non-backfit, right?
8 MR. RICEARDSON:
Correct.
o!
DR. SIESS: 'Would you like to just go through page by i
10 page?
Il li There were no changes on pages 1, 2 and 3, but we've 12 got somebody to read stuff.
l
(
13 !
Gerry, did you find anything in 1, 2 or 3?
14 MR. RAY:
In 2, this is editorial.
Under C, line 10.
l l
15 ' The subject of the overall sentence which is quite complicated, i
16 l is " requirement", the second word, I think.
And then the verb i
17 {with which that should be coordinated, on line 13, " provide".
l 18 So it's either " requirement provides" or " requirements provide" 19 or either the verb is wrong or the subject is wrong.
i I
I 20 '
MR. RICHARDSON:
The subject ehculd be plural.
l i
21 DR. SIESS:
Okay.
That one was almost as bad as the i
22 ! German sentence.
j l
1
'/
23 !
MR. RAY:
The Pennsylvan_a Dutch.
~ !
24 (Laughter.)
Ace-Feceral Reco,ters, Inc.
25,
DR. SIESS:
Page 3, anything?
i
227 I
mte 108 1
Okay, on page 4, apparently generated a fair amount 2
of ccmment regarding reference to Section 11 for in-service I
3l inspection.
And the staff got around that by taking out the
(~'
i l
4 reference to Section 11 and putting in -- I guess it wasn't t
l 5l quite clear to me what you -- you said that what you put in are j l
I 6
test requirements which are equivalent to those specified in i
7j Section 11, and which the staff feels are necessary.
So I didn't i
8 try to compare it with Section 11, but this is not everything in!
l 9l Section 11.
This is the part you think is necessary.
10 l MR. RICHARDSON:
This is the testing from Section 11 i
l 11 'i that would apply to the diesel generator fuel.
12 5 MR. BENDER:
I have forgotten what Section 11 says l
13 about pressure testing.
When a 1.10 time is -- is that a
("'
f 14 pressure hold test or a soap bubble test, or what?
I 15 MR. MILHOAN:
If I remember correctly from Section 11,;
I l
i 16 I it's a four-hour pressure hold test.
But it's been a while I
17 since I looked at that.
18 i DR. ETHE RINGTON.
We've got ourselves into a bind, I
l 19 i really.
We're thinking Section 3, which in a pressure vessel i
i I
20 ! calls for a design pretty well to the comfortable limit of the i
21 material.
So you don't like to test much more than 10 percent 22 over the operating pressure or the design pressure.
Here you i
(
I 23 lhave a system that may be operating at 10 psi and to test that.
b 24 l at Il psi because it was designed for that is nonsense, because Ac J.ome n.comn. inc.,
25 the system really will be good for 250 anyway.
You may in i
I I
mte iO9 228 jl fact redesign to 250 --
i 2 !
DR. SIESS:
But you're looking for leaks.
I I
DR. ETHERINGTON:
Are you'looking just for leaks?
I 3!
(~'
4! don't know.
10 96rcent overpressure doesn't help you a bit on 5! leaks.
i l
6l DR. SIESS:
This says during tne pressure test, visual!
l examination shall be conducted for evidence of component 7
leakages--which, as you say, 10 percent over is not going to 8,
l 9l help you much -- structural distrsss -- well, if 10 percent l
jo l helps you there, you're in trouble -- or corrosion -- and you i
i ll i can look for corrosion without pressure, right; and for buried i
12 components, you're looking for loss of system pressure.
So it's j3 really a sort of a combination of the hold test or the visual 14 soap bubble test.
i 15 DR. ETHERINGTON:
I think, uhless you specify the i
l 16 lsystem shall be designed for 250 psi, for example, that j
i 17 ' 10 percent overpressure is meaningless.
It's designed for a I
18 lnominal pressure like 25 psi.
pp DR. SIESS:
What's this thing?
They are not designed 20 : for much are they?
I MR. BENDER:
10 pounds, thereabouts.
21 22.
DR. ETHERINGTON:
Well, the piping you will put in 23 will obviously be goed for 250 psi.
In other words, if you 24 trot on it, it wouldn't buckle.
Aa-fewai amornn. ine.
25 !
MR. BENDER:
Of course,-it depends how much you test l
i f
i
229 mt.e,110 I
it.
If it's a system of screwed fittings, it won't hold air l
2{ pressure for 11 counds or even 2 counds, but itmayholdoilalll i
3l right.
l 4'
DR. SIESS:
Now, the ANSI calls for in-service 5i inspection in accord with ASME 11, right?
I 6)
MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, sir.
7 DR. SIESS:
And you're backing off from that.
l l
8:
How did the ANSI ever get to this?
It seems like a i
I i
9 strange thing.
i 10 '
MR. MILHOAN:
I don't know.
i i
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
I don't know how the working group 12 {ever did get Section 11 --
i t
t
(_
13 l, DR. SIESS:
TVA made the comment -- I think it seems l
I 14 l to me more than one did, but I'm not sure -- he simply said i
t I
I 15 l this inherits the section -- no, he says Section 3.
l 16 l MR. BENDER:
That's what was there initially.
They 17 have since changed it as pressure.
18 MR. RICHARDSON:
Thh ANSI section invokes both l
l 19 i Section 3 for the design requirements, materials, et cetera, and; i
20 Section 11.
i 21,
DR. SIESS:
Oh, I see.
i 22 l MR. BENDER:
Neither one of which makes much sense l
[
i 23 on an oil storage system.
24 DR. ETHERINGTON:
If it's designed for 250 psi, which Ac Jeana %enm. inc.
25 would be reasonable, operated at 10, and then periodically i
230 I
l mte 111 I
l tested at 250 or 10 percent over, that would make some sense j
l 2l But unless there's some specified design pressure that's well i
i i
3i above the operating pressure, I don't see that this testing t
l
(
does us any good at all.
l 4
l l
1 5l MR. BENDER:
The tanks usually won't take much more than 50.
6l i
i DR. ETHERINGTCN:
That's right, a big tank wouldn't.
7 of this testingql MR. MILHOAN:
Other than in this case, g
And I think',e're back to the original point of this pressure 9
I 10 l testing, is more, really, or an Indication of leakage, a leakage i
l 11 l j
test.
i 32 DR. ETHERINGTON:
You don't need 10 percent over-13 ! pressure for that.
That's the point.
If it doesn't leak at ja operating pressure, it won' t leak at 10 percent over operating 15 pressure.
I 16 DR. SIESS:
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to go i
i j7 10 percent over.
It doesn't make any difference.
jg Incidentally, Bill, we got the discussion of public i
19 1 comments, but. -re didn' t get the comments themselves with this,
i 20 l for some reason. And Guy Arlotto's letter. clearly didn't:say we'.re
~
21 l getting it, and that's why I was having a little confusion.
l 22 They summarized the comments.
Not that I don't trust you, but
(-
23 ; sometimes it's helpful to read the whole comment.
24 MR. MILHOAN:
I guess they slipped up and didn't send Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ; you the comments.
That wasn't our intent.
i i
231 l
mte 112 i
1 DR. SIESS:
I assumed you weren't holding something 2
back deliberately.
I I
3' Harold, 10 percent doesn't hurt.
c-~
I 4
DR. ETHERINGTON:
It doesn't hurt.
I'm just pointing l
5 out it's not very sensitive.
If you walk around and tare a 6! look at it once a month, that's just as good as testing at i
7 10 percent overpressure.
I 8i DR. SIESS:
If it takes normally under some -- are the I
9: tanks normally under some pressure?
10 MR. RICHARDSCN:
They're normally under flame arrester i
Il so you get a minor back --
l 12I DR. SIESS:
How big are these tanks?
What are we l
{'
13 talking about?
Aren' t these things about so big around?
Are 14
'these Dade (? ) tanks?
15 DR. ETHERINGTON:
Are these Dade tanks or are they 1
1 16 storage tanks?
Storage tanks, odds about nine to one they're 17 underground, isn' t that correct?
18 MR. FGCHARDSON:
That's right.
Some of them are 19 buried.
Some of them are also buried.
i 1
I 20 :
DR. SIESS:
If they're buried, there's no way you i
i 21 l can tell if they're leaking except by knowing when the oil goes l l
22 j down.
23 i MR. BENDER:
Usually they have a sump pump.
. I 24 DR. SIESS:
If they are vaulted, they would have it; Ac Jeeni a. corms. inc. ;
25, not if they're buried, because, you know, even a tank that is l
232 mte 113 l! not under pressure, if it's got a hole in it it's going to leak.
l l
2l By just the weight of the oil, it's going to do something.
l i
3' It seems to me, the best way you re going to find out l
(
I 4; if these things leak, you've got to watch your oil level.
Get i
1 5, a dipstick.
t 6!
DR. ETHERINGTON:
If you have a tank 60 inches in diameter and a quarter of an inch thick, it will carry 200 pounds 7 i l
I I
8 psi.
i 9!
MR. RICHARDSON:
NRR was concerned more about 10 l in-leakage of water than about out-leakage of oil.
In other II words, if you had a leak where~the water level is coming into l
I 12 your tank, you wouldn't notice any radical change in your oil I
(~
13 ! level.
l l
14 DR. SIESS:
You would notice a radical change in your !
l 15 oil.
You've got to check it every time you fill the tank.
One 16 of those tests on the oil has to be run.
i 17 l MR. RICHARDSON,
Water and sediment.
j i
18 DR. SIESS:
And when these tanks are needed, they 19 ! don't change condition very much.
It's not like when the diesels 20 ' start, they all of a sudden get 10 psi.
It's of doubtful value 21l but it's backed off from what the ANSI has, so I guess it's a I
22 l step in the right direction.
l
(
l l
23 i DR. ETEERINGTON:
I don't object to it.
24 DR. SIESS:
And I guess it's not a great big deal.
Ace-Federal Reco,ters, Inc.
25, You're only going to do it three times, four times in the life i
233 '
mte 11'4 1l of the plant.
It says 10-year intervals.
Mainly you're worried 3
t l
2! about corrosion, I think.
t 3'
MR. RICHARDSON:
That's right, j
f
(~'
i 4,
DR. SIESS:
And I think you'll pick up your corrosion j i
5 from testing your oil.
6f MR. MILHOAN:
I w6uld have to agree with you on that.
7 DR. SIESS:
If you don't pick it up often in 10 years --
i 8! you most likely will pick it up when you run your diesel test l
l 9! with the water.
l 10,
MR. BENDER:
I'm hoping they have regular inspection 11 ! of these tanks to be sure they don't leak, they' re not waiti:rg 12 for a 10-year test to find out what's wrong with them.
That
('
13 would be somewhere near sheer lunacy.
14 DR. SIESS:
What will water do in diesel fuel, keep u
l 15 the diesel from running?
I 16,
DR. ETHERINGTON:
Probably corrode.
There'd be a 17 l good deal of corrosion before it did real damage.
i 18 DR. SIESS:
Just the water itself, it wouldn't be 1
19, like it would in a gasoline engine.
I 20 i DH. ETHE.'INGTON :
If you got a lot of water.
I was i
I 211 thinking of just a little.
22,
MR. MILHOAN:
If you had a tremendous amount of water, 1
(
I 23! it would damage the engine.
I 24 }
DR. SIESS:
You're running the engines about what, Ace 4.oeras Recorters, tric.
25 l once a month now?
i
234 mte 115 1
MR. RICHARDSON:
The wcter then, I think, displaces 2i the oil in the tank.
i 3l DR. SIESS:
Ciesels are tested what, about once a I
4 month' 5!
MR. RICHARDSON:
They're load testad monthly, and you !
I
,i 6
check the fuel quality once every few months, run a standard l
l l
7l test.
l e-16 8!
DR. SIESS:
That's the best test you've got.
i 9i In 10 years, a lot of things can happen in 10 years.
i i
10 !
Okay, on page 5 there was just a word taken out on the; I
l 1
i 11 1 protection system to indicate a waterproof protective coating l
12 wasn't really waterproof protective.
i i
{
Incidentally, most people writing specs now ' avoid the 13 14, word " waterproof" right now like mad.
Water-resistant.
They l
15 I have gotten sued.
Very few things are waterproof.
i 16 Page 6, there's a number of changes.
They allowed a 17 federal fuel oil spec in there, in line 4, that, after ASTM 4
i la ! D-975-77, because it made it look like the fuel oil spec --
1 I
i i
19 l something in the aporoach is another scec, are the requirements I
i 20 ' of the manufacture".
And I think you can leave the comma out i
21 without bothering anybcdy.
I 22 l MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, sir.
/
23 '
DR. SIESS.
Then you wrote in the cloud point require-24 I ment, in view of referencing C(2) (b).
You just took it out of Ace-Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 ene place and put it in another, right?
i f
235 l
mte'116 MR. RICHARDSON :
That's right.
j 2
DR. ETHERINGTON:
On line 12, "The diesel shall be i
4 1
3' considered inoperable."
Does that mean from a regulatory point
(
4llof view?
You are not allowed to count on that diesel for an l
l off-site power loss, or does it mean the diesel mustn't be f'
S 1
6 operated?
i DR. SIESS:
I read it the first way.
l 7
l MR. RICHARDSON:
It's from the regulatory standpoint; 8,
i I
9l the midimum conditions for operation.
10 i DR. ETHERINGTON:
It means exactly that.
l i
i I
11 DR. SIESS:
Which means you'd have to start the other 12 l cne.
That's the way I read it.
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
If you don't have at least one other, 14, you'd have to shut down.
l l
I i
15 l DR. SIESS:
In lines 13 to 15, it says that if the oil.
l 16 doesn't meet the ASTM reqdirements, it should be replaced in a I
17l short period of time, about a week.
Now, as I recall, those g3 l tests were something that had to be done off-site, wasn't it?
I 19 l Some of the D-975 tests?
i l
20 '
MR. RICHARDSON:
That's right.
DR. SIESS:
My question was, about a week after you 21 22 sample it or about a week after you get the test results back?
(_/
It might take you about a week to get them.
I know about a 23 24 ! week, meaning don't wait a month and you don't have to do it in Aasenc amornn. ix. '
25 ' two days.
i l
i f
236 i
mte 117' 1
MR. RICHARDSON-The phrase about a week reflects the l 2
fact that you do have to send them off-site until you get the I
i 3
results.
I don't think we were specific to try to grant them i
(
4 a week once they knew they had bad oil.
I t
5l DR. SIESS:
You were thinking more of a week from j
6! the time you sampled it, to give them time to get the results I
i 7l back?
l i
l 8
MR. RICHARDSON:
That's right, that was our intent.
9 DR. SIESS:
That's what I thought it might mean.
If 10 it took them two weeks to get it back, you wouldn't kill them.
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
No, sir.
12 DR. SIESS:
If they know it's bad, they shouldn't wait' i
13 another week.
{
14 MR. RICHARDSON:
That's correct.
15 DR. SIESS:
Does the federal specification include 16 the cloud point?
See, I guess in 13, where you say fuel cil l
17 contained in the supply tank not meeting remaining ASTM l
18 requirements, you allow three tests:
ASTM, federal specs or j
l 19 l the manufacturer's specs.
j i
20.
MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
i f
DR. SIESS:
But only if they don't -- suppose they 21 l 22 j don't meet ASTM tests.
You see, I don't know whether cloud
(/
x-23 1 point is in all three of them.
Let's ar,ume it's in all three.- t 24 !
MR. RICHARDSON:
We don't know what the manufacturer's AmJewat Rmorun, W.
j 25 recommendations are, but it is in the federal spec and the ASTM.;
t i
i 1
237 l
mte.118 l
DR. SIESS:
So you say if it dcesn't meet the cloud a
2l point, it's inoperable, considered inoperable.
If it doesn't 3! meet any of the others --
('
l N
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
Let me correct you.
If it doesn't 5
meet viscosity, water and sediment, it's inoperable.
6:
DR. ETHERINGTON:
Does that mean any one of the 7
three?
8 MR. RICHARDSON:
What we have done is, when the oil l
9l arrives on site, you take the viscosity, specific gravity and I
10 l water and sediment, which are relatively easy tests that we II think can be run on-site, and give you a rough measure of the I
12 ! fuel oil quality.
If it doesn't meet those requiraments --
l
(
13 DR. ETHERINGTON:
If it doesn't meet any one of them, Id but meets the other two, you say "and".
l f
15 MR. RICHARDSON :
That's correct.
16 '
DR. SIESS:
Do you mean "and"'or "or"?
l l
17 MR. RICHARDSON:
I mean "and"; all three.
i 18 DR. SIESS:
Okay.
i l9 !
DR. ETHERINGTON:
So it may fail any two and still 20 '; be acceptable?
21 l MR. RICHARDSON:
No.
22 l DR. ETHERINGTON:
That's what you're saying now.
(
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
My intent is they must meet all
~
t i
24 three.
Ace-Federal Rooorters, Inc.
25 DR. SIESS:
I see where my question went wrong, t
e
238 mte 119' 1
In line 12, you say "the limits specified in ASTM D-975. "
Are r
2 there similar limits in the federal spec?
f l
3 MR. RICHARDSON :
Yes, sir.
l (I
I 4,j DR. SIESS:
Why don't you say "in the applicable I
f I
5' specification"?
l 1
6:
MR. RICHARDSON:
That would be fine.
7 DR. SIESS:
It seems to me you forgot you added them, 8i except you don't know what the manuf acturer's are.
l 9!
MR. RICHAMDSON:
We' ll make that. change.
f 10 DR. SIESS:
Unless his is more restrictive, this II. governs, right?
I2 DR. ETHERINGTON:
Let's clear up that question of l
13 "and" on line 11.
If test results for viscosity, water or l
(~
14 sediment for fuel oil contained in the supply tanks exceed the 15, limits, the diesel should be considered --
16 l MR. RICHARDSON:
The problem is, water and sediment 17 ! is one test.
i 18 DR. ETHERINGTON:
I see.
Viscosity or water and 19 sediment.
l i
t 20 !
DR. SIESS:
Suppose it meets the viscosity, but 21 ! doesn ' t meet water and sediment.
Is it operable or not?
i 22.
MR. RICHARDSON:
No.
(#
I 23 i DR. SIESS:
Okay, then you want an "or" in there
~ l 24 somewhere.
Ace seen i secomn, Inc.
25 MR. RICHARDSON:
Suppose it meets viscosity or?
4 4
i
239 mte 120' l
1 DR. SIESS:
Test results for viscosity or for water l
i 2l and sediment.
And then I would say "of the fuel oil contained t
l 3: in the supply tanks" or "for".
I don't care.
Too many "for's",!
(~
4, but that's all right.
It's clear.
5l Okay, the bottom of page 6,
" viscosity" was added; i
I 6' " cloud point 99 percent distillation temperature" was removed.
i l
i 7l The remaining material got moved up into the first paragraph.
I i
8!
Okay.
This is a new set of tests prior to adding new 9l fuel oil, right?
So you repeat the test results, on the top 10 of page 7, "should not exceed the lidits specified in the D-97 5. 'I II Either say "the applicable spec" or put both of them in, I guess.
12 i And also in 4, line 4.
l l
13 !
Deletion in line 13.
There's a deletion on line 16,
(
14 and if I hadn't read the value-impact -- if I hadn't read your I
15 ! response to the comments, I wouldn't understand the significance i
I 16 of taking out "any".
And I don't know whether the user of the i
i i
17 l guide will get the significance.
That "any" means more than a j
i 1
18 very little.
Now it means more than a very little.
l 19 l DR. ETHERINGTON:
The vord "any" had some sense, i
20 l though, because there should be no accumulation of water.
In i
21 the event there should be accumulated water, it should be 22 ' removed immediately, is the sentence.
(
/
23 DR. SIESS:
But that isn' t why they took it out, 24 though.
They took i' out --
Am e = =.i a ne m ri.ine.
25 MR. RICHARDSCN:
One of the commenters pointed out i
l l
mte 12-1 240 I
that even very, very small trace amounts of residual water would 2l
- have no impact on these, and he objected that the word "any" E
l 3-means that he had to go get every smidgen or every trace of gs 4l water out.
I l
5 DR. SIESS:
That's what I meant, it was a very subtle 6! change.
i 7j DR. ETHERINGTON:
But it really was put in for the l
8! reason I suggested originally.
l 9
DR;. SIESS :
Yes.
And the change at the bottom of the i
i 10, page removes the reference to Section 11.
Now you just require l
Il cleaning at 10-year intervals without necessarily that they have 12 ' to clean it in order to make the test?
(
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
We require cleaning just to get the Id sediment out of the tanks.
Prior to this, they did it in i
1 i conjunction with the pressure test.
But we saw no reason to I
15 i
i 16 couple the two of them together.
17 DR. SIESS:
You're no longer adding additional fuel i
18 oil.
I don't know how that slipped by this Ccmmittee.
And in I
19 ; the middle of page 8, that was simply to specify that these 20 fprocedures shouldn't apply only to a particular type of cathodic m
i 2I protection.
There are other types.
22 f MR. RAY:
Line 14, the word "following" has a t
23 I transposition.
24 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, sir.
AaJewst amorars. ine.
25 i DR. SIESS:
Implementation procedure is now standard.
i l
I
241 mte 122 I
Now, on the other ones w3 were looking at that had this imple-2 mentation, the original paragraph simply referenced the fact l
t 3
that they're -- it superseded or weglaced a branch technical 4
position.
This doesn't.
I5' MR. MORRISON:
That's right.
6 DR. SIESS:
What is your pleasure, gentlemen?
Are I
i 7
you willing to recommend this one to the full Committee for 8j concurrence?
l 9
MR. BENDER:
I'm in favor.
l 10 l DR. ETHERINGTON:
Yes.
11 l l
I MR. RAY Yes.
l I
l 12 :
DR. SIESS:
Let's see.
The changes have been very I
(~'
13 minor.
I will just tell the Committee there have been only 14 editorial-type changes.
The ASTM thing and a plural and a 15 ! couple of typos is all we have done.
You have got them, and 16 you don't need to provide us with a clean copy.
i 17 MR. RAY:
Gary, do these also cost $16 apiece?
l i
18 MR. RICHARDSON:
14.
i 19 !
(Documents collected and returned to Mr. Richardson.)
l l
20 '
DR. SIESS:
Mr. Morrison, for next month, Regulatory l
l 21 ! Guide RS 809-5.
Where did that come from?
i 22 '
MR. MORRISON:
That's our task number.
j l
I 23; DR. SIESS:
Okay.
That's better than 1XX.
24 MR. MORRISON:
I had 1XX taken out and the task number Acs Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ' inserted.
I i
i a
242 l
mte 123 l
I DR. SIESS:
This is very helpful.
2 Cable penetration fire-stop qualification test for i
3l nuclear power plants.
This, I assume, does not endorse an l
[~'
4l ANSI standards?
l I
5[
MR. MORRISON:
No, this is an endorsement of an IEEE l
6! standard.
7 DR. SIESS:
IEEE.
And Revision 1 to Reg Guide 158, 8 ! qualification of nuclear power plant inspection, examination 9 i and testing personnel.
This is an effective guide, now, that l
10 ' you are revising and going back for comment?
II MR. MORRISON:
We are revising it, revisions to take l
I I2 ! account of the revised standard that it endorses, N-45.2.6.
l 13 l
(
DR. SIESS:
Okay.
And then you will come back with Id 1.140 for us?
15 l MR. MORRISON:
Right.
I 16 DR. SIESS-We will have about a half a day meeting I7 next month.
We will be through by 1:00.
We have got another i
i 18 meeting scheduled at 2:00.
We shouldn't have any trouble getting I9 ' through in that time.
l Anything else?
20 l
2I MR. MORRISON:
That's all I have.
I 22 DR. SIESS:
The meeting is adjourned.
e-57 23 '
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m.,
tL a meeting was adjourned. )-
l 24 Ace-Federal Recorters, Inc.
25 :
,