ML20002B194
| ML20002B194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1980 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012110054 | |
| Download: ML20002B194 (5) | |
Text
i t
- gp Rf 7%
L,#
~
' k, UNITED STATES
,?*
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
p WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
'+,...../
October 30, 1980 9s
. c,a Docket No. 50-219
.{g_
h
! =.A k
M, rJp=
ps hs C
d5
~
Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.
5E di U
Vice President M
R g
Jersey Central Power & Light Company 2
w Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P. O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Dear Mr. Finfrock:
We have completed a preliminary review of the Oyster Creek Inservice Inspection Program. We find that additional information is required to continue our review.
Enc.losed are the questions and conments that need to be resolved.
Past experience with similar reviews at other plants has shown that the most efficient and effective way of resolving the remaining questions is through a meeting at the plant with the NRC reviewers, the plant operating personnel, and the responsible inservice inspection engineer. A written response is not required at this time, but we request that your staff have the requested information and be prepared to discuss it at a meeting at the Oyster Creek plant.
It is our understanding that November 17, 1980 is tentatively acceptable to your staff for the meeting.
The following personnel will represent the NRC at this meeting:
Walter Paulson, NRC James Kennedy, NRC Martin Hum, NRC Thomas Taylor, Battelle Northwest Laboratory If you have any questions concerning the enclosure or the proposed meeting, please contact Walter Paulson, 301-492-7214.
Sincerely, t
Dennis M. Crutchfield, CMef Operating Reactor! Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure: See next page m
.c -(
. p g,-
'o 8 012110 N
I s
Mr. I. R. F_i nf rock, J r. October 30, 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. C.
20036 380 Scotts Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 GPU Service Corporation ATTN. Mr. E. G. Wallace Comissioner Licensing Manager New Jersey Department of Energy 260 Cherry Hill Road 101 Comerce Street Parsippany. New Jersey 07054 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Natural Resources Defense Council Plant Superintendent 91715th Street, N. W.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Washington, D. C.
20006 Station P. O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Steven P. Russo, Esquire 248 Washington Street Resident Inspector P. O. Box 1060 c/o V. S. NRC Toms River, New Jersey 08753 P. O. Box 445 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr., Esquire Deputy Attorney General Director, Technical Assessment Div.
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. Environmental 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 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Comissioner Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersey 101 Comerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 l
F F'
g. -
k
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ISI PROGRAM UPDATE 1.
For ASME Code Class 1 piping welds, you reference Regulatory Guide 1,46
" Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment" as stating that straight runs of piping are not structural discontinuties and, therefore, you interpret Regulatory Guide 1.46 as exempting all straight runs of pipir.g from inservice inspection (ISI). This is not an acceptable technical justification.
Regulatory Guide 1.46 does not address ISI but describes methods for postulating breaks and for determining the measures that should be taken for physical restraint against pipe whipping that may result from such breaks. Discuss your degree of conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.46.
Provide the technical justification for each Class I weld in straight runs of piping that is required to be examined by Section XI but was exempted from examination based on Regulatory Guide 1.46.
2.
List the Class 1 welds that have been exempted from examination based on lWB-1220(b)(1) of the Code. Provide calculations and assumptions made in detennining the maximum line size exempted.
It should be noted that "ca-site" power should include only power from the batteries, emergency diesels, and the turbine-generator.
3.
The staff position concerning IWC-1220 exemption criteria of Class 2 welds in the emergency core cooling system, the residual heat removal system, and the containment heat removal system, as permitted by the 1974 Edition of Section XI, is that a representative sample of welds in these systems must be subjected to volumetric and/or surface examinations during each inspection interval. These safety related systems cannot be completely exempted from volumetric or surface examination based upon the requirements of 50.55a(b) in 10 CFR 50 General Design Criteria 36 & 39, and the Summer 1978 Addenda to the 1977 Edition of Section XI. The ISI program should therefore be revised to include a sampling of welds and the proposed methods of exami-nation for the ECCS, RHRS, and CHRS welds previously exempted for pressure /
temperature conditions, line size, or chemistry control.
Class 2 systems other than those referenced above may be exempted based on operating conditions of pressure or temperature in lieu of design conditions, as permitted by 1977 Edition of Section XI. Relief will not be granted for components which operate above 275* psi or 200*F for short periods of time without a technical jusitification.
The alternative examination specified in the licensee's ISI program for Class 2 welds exempted under IWC-1220(a) of the Summer 1978 Addenda to Section XI should be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Examination Category C-H, Table IWC-2500-1 in the same Addenda.
M r _.
+ 4.
In Table 3'C the licensee requested relief for welds whose physical location within the plant has limited access. Provide a sketch depicting
~the inaccessibility or describe the specific conditions which prevent performance of the Code required exeminations. Discuss the measures necessary to make each weld accessible and the hardship this would impose, including the estimated radiation exposures to complete a specific examination..
To detecti potehtial' generic degradation, the size of-the examination sample shall be maintained _to the extent practical.. The ISI program should be revised to include repeated examinations on similar (material, pipe diameter, and wall thickness) accessible welds with the lowest radiation exposure.
The installation of remote inspection fixtures should be evaluated to' achieve ALARA conditions.
5.
Confinn that Class 2 pipe to pipe circumferential butt welds of the same schedule wall thickness will be e'xamined in 'the ISI program according to the requirements of Table IWC-2520, Category C-F(b) and C-G(b).
l 6.
The examinations. proposed for reactor ves'sel nozzles are not consistent with the augmented examination requirements in NUREG 0619, "BWR Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking". The augmented examina-tion requirements will-be addressed during the implementation of this NUREG.
Provide infonnation on the feasibility of perfoming automated ultrasonic examinations on.all of the nozzles to minimize radiation exposure.
7.
The Weld Summary Sheets referenced in the licensee's ISI program for various 4 '
Class 1 and Class 2 welds do not, in all cases define the extent and method of examination.
List the extent and method of examination for each category in Appendices 3A and 3B.
8.
To maintain the examination sample for the reactor vessel welds, the examina-tion of. accessible vessel welds should be increased, where practical, to maintain the overall length of welds required to be examined by Section XI.
Provide the following additional information concerning the reactor vessel weld examinations:
a) The specific welds for which relief is required.
b) The program currently in use for monitoring radiation damage to materials in the beltline region.
c) The feasibility of' conducting remote visual examinations of welds from the inside surface of the vessel.
d) The design aspects of shielding and insulation which prevent accessibility, if different from the explanation given for vessel nozzles.
9.
Surface examinations are specified for the cuntrol rod drive housing;and integrally welded vessel supports where Section XI specifies either a sur-face or volumetric examination. Provide a sketch of the typical configura-tion and discuss the reasons that a volumetric examination is impractical.
l l
h m,
- 10. AllJpiping. welds within protective structures or guard pipes between con-
. tainment isolation valves, which cannot meet the augmented examination
. requirements of Section B.2.d of Branch Technical Position APSCB 3-1 in Standard Review Plan 3.6.1, should be identified in a relief request.
For the inaccessible weld sh?vn'in Figure 3.1, provide the following information:
i '
a) The accessibility for' volumetric examination of the weld joining the
. flued head to the outer sleeve.
yb) The' proximity of leak detection systems to these penetrations.
c) The capability of the guard pipe or penetration sleeve to withstand the full dynamic effects of a longitudinal or circumfernetial break of the enclosed process pipe, including jet impingement, pipe whip impact, and environmental effects.
- 11. The licensee's ISI program contains a request for relief from volumetric examination of Class 1 & 2 piping, vessels, and valves of.375 inch thick-i ness and less.
Identify the lines and comoonents included in this relief request and list their size, thickness, and material.
- 12. The definition of a group of Class 1 valves in the licensee's program is not in accordance with that in Section XI. Revise the program to include examinations'of all code required valves.
If the disassembly of valves solely for inservice inspection is impractical, a relief request, with 4
technical justification, should be subnitted.
J 13. Note 2 in Appendix 3B of the ISI program states that certain examination requirements for pressure retaining bolting have been updated to those in t
the 1977. Edition through the Sammer 1978 Addenda of the code. We will require that all of the requirements for bolting in the later edition and addenda, including extent of examination, be met.if practical.
1
- - - - -.