ML19326E100
| ML19326E100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1980 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-05-04, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8007250691 | |
| Download: ML19326E100 (3) | |
Text
_
-* f neo UNITED STATES 8
],
~
c.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.....p July 9,1980 Docket No. 50-219 Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.
Vice President - Generation Jersey Central Power & Light C'onpany Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Dear Mr. Finfrock:
By letter dated June 27, 1980, Jersey Central Power and Light Company submitted an evaluation of two possible cracks in the Emergency Core Spray piping within the reactor vessel between the inlet nozzle and the vessel shroud. These indications or discontinuities were discovered during the scheduled television inspection of the Core Spray Piping while the reactor vessel head was off for core refueling.
Review of the televised video tapes made during the visual inspection resulted in the classification of two linear indications as "possible" cracks.
There are two independent core spray headers within the reactor vessel.
Both observed indications are on the outer surfaces of the two 6 X 5 inch eccentric reducers in one of the two emergency core spray headers. For the safety analysis, it was assumed that the linear indications in each reducer are cracks that are 41/2 inches long by.030 inch maximum width.
On June 30, 1980 your representatives met with NRC representatives in Bethesda, Maryland for further review and discussion of this evaluation.
By letter dated July 2,1980, you provided responses to specific NRC questions raised at the meeting related to the probable cause of the indication. Also included in that submittal was a summary of the worst case safety analysis that assumes failure of the piping containing the linear indications and a guillotine break outside of the reactor vessel in the line to the second core spray header.
By letter dated July 7,1980, you provided five replacement pages for the June 27,1980 letter to reflect the results of the evaluation of the l
stress conditions which may exist in the piping.
1 1
710725044l
4 R.." I. R. Fi nf rock, J r. July 9, 1980 Your evaluation shows that normal and seismic stresses are not excessive in the region of the cracks and that crack propagation due to five heat up and cool down cy::les is of no concern. Even if the cracks grow to eight inches due to vibratory loading, your calculations show that the integrity of the core spray system will be maintained. You have also concluded that these conditions will not be exceeded during the next fuel cycle (approximately one year of operation).
In addition your analysis of thermal expansion stresses during core spray injection and hydraulic forces which could open cracks show that the core spray effectiveness will not be degraded below original design values.
The results of our evaluation indicate that if it is assumed that the linear indicaticns are cracks and if the piping fails at these locations (inside the reactor vessel), addition of water to the reactor vessel through the affected core spray header reactor vessel nozzle would not restrict flooding capability. We tentatively agree with your evaluation that following rupture of the second core spray inlet, the clad tegeratures and metal-water reaction calculated in &ccordance with Appendix K requirements are below 10 CFR 50.46 limits. Our final approval is contingent upon submittal and review of the detailed analysis which was presented in sumary form.
We further agree with your plans to coglete a quantitative evalulation on low-low-low water level by August 1,1980, re-inspect the piping crack indications using the most effective methods during the next refueling outage and provide for possible replacement of the reducers if more extensive inspection during the next outage confirms the presence of cracking.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation, for one fuel cycle, of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant.
Si erely, ennis M. Crutchfield, Chi Operating Reactors Branch 5 i
Division of Licensing l
cc: See next page I
' Mr. I. R. Fi nf rock, J r. July 9, 1980 cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Gene Fisher Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bureau Chief 1800 M Street, N. W.
Bureau of Radiation Protection Washington, D. L.
20036 380 Scotts Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 GPU Service Corporatioc ATTN: Mr. E. G. Wallace Mark L. First Licensing Manager Deputy Attorney General 260 Cherry Hill Road State of New Jersey Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Department of Law and Public Safety Environmental Protection Section Anthony Z. Roisman 36 West State Street Natural Resources Defense Council Trenton, New Jersey 08625 91715th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Joseph T. Carroll, Jr.
Plant Superintendeat Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Steven P. Russo Esquire Station 248 Washington Street P. O. Box 388 P. O. Box 1060 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Toms River, New Jersey 08753 Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr., Esquire Director, Technical Assessment Deputy Attorney General Division State of New Jersey Office of Radiation Programs Department of Law and Public Safety (AW-459) 1100 Raymond Boulevard U. S. Environmental Protection Newark, New Jersey 07012 Agency Crystal Mall #2 Ocean County Library Arlington, Virginia 20460 Brick Township Branch 401 Chambers Bridge Road U. S. Environ ~ mental Protection Brick Town, New Jersey 08723 Agency Region II Office Mayor ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR Lacey Township 26 Federal Plaza P. O. Box 475 New York, New York 10007 l
Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Comissioner Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersey 101 Connerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102
.