ML20054K172
| ML20054K172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054K173 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-03-03.C, TASK-3-3.C, TASK-RR LSO5-82-06-091, LSO5-82-6-91, NUDOCS 8207010266 | |
| Download: ML20054K172 (9) | |
Text
..
June 24, 1982 Docket No. 50-219 LS05-82-06-091 Mr. P.B. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
SUBJECT:
0YSTER CREEK, EVALUATION OF SEP TOPIC III-3.C, INSERVICE INSPECTION OF llATER CO*lTROL STRUCTURES is our staff's evaluation of SEP Topic III-3.C, Inservice Inspection of tlater Control Structures. This evaluation is based on our review of a Franklin Research Center Technical Evaluation Report for this topic which is also included as Enclosure 2.
Our conclusions regarding this topic are briefly sumarized as follows:
I 1.
The licensee has identified the pertinent safety-related water control structures requiring surveillance in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.127.
However since the licensee identifies roof drains as flood control structures (SEP Topic II-3.8),
these drains should be included in the licensee's formal inspection program for water control structures.
- Further, the side slopes of the entire length of the intake and discharge canals should be added to the inspection program.
Features of the canals to be inspected should include banks, slunping, frost heaving, and other degradation of the asphalt-bonded, crushed stone liner.
$'CM 2.
Engineering drawings pertaining to the water control structures should be available on the site.
d (f 3.
Although the planned frequencies of routine inspections are u
acceptable, the licensee should develop a formal inspection program that should be conducted or overseen by qualified engineering personnel who would document the results of the inspections, as recomended in Regulatory Guide 1.127.
8207010266 820624 PDR ADOCK 05000219 O
PDR 1
o,, m >
- e>
oarr y Anc Fonu ats om sacu cro OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usea mi_mw
s P. B. Fiedler 4.
The licensee should perforn special inspections inmediately af ter the occurrence of extreme events (such as surges, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) and prepare technical reports that present the results of such inspections.
The subject of this evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated assessnent and may change in the future if your facility design is nodified or if HRC criteria relating to this topic changes prior to the completion of the integrated assessment.
Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
l
{
- See previous yellow for addipl concurrences.
'D%.A:DL 0{. BM....BC omcr >
. SE.P..B. :. D L.....
.SEPB:DL SEPB:DL ORB #5 sunuu.e >
..RE.e.l.l.;.dK*....
.Mr.ime,,*s,,
.XRus, sell,,,
,,,,J.Lp,m,ba.
,(@C,ru.tchf,iel,t, G,,,a,,,n,a,s,,,,,
onep.. Ed.0JB2.......... 6121J.82......... 6I.$\\/82.....
..Ed$JB2..... '. 6f.*i.?J.82....... 6ffJB2......
j NRC FORM 318 00 80) NRCM Ono OFFIClAL. RECORD COPY
\\
usamni-swa
I Mr. P.B. Fiedler 4.
The licensee should perform special inspections immediately after the occurrence of extreme events (such as surges, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) and prepare technical reports that present the results of such inspections.
Please respond to the accuracy of these findings and intended actions to take within 30 days from receipt of this letter.
The subject of this evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated assessment and may change in the future if your facility design is modified or if NRC criteria relating to this topic changes prior to the completion of the integrated assessment.
Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page I
m omce> Dk.;S E,PB,,
,,DL,;S,E,P,B/S,k,k,DL,:,S EP,B,/,B,C,
,.DL,;0RB.
DL,,:0RB #5,/,B.C. DL: AD/SA,,,,
suo m e> R[e,ll;,s,a,h,,,,
,,,C,G,t, me,s,,,,,,,,,,y,R,u,s s, ell,,,,,ykggba,,
DCr,u tch,fi el d
.,G(ai n as,
i
.6!.Gl.82,,,,,,,, g.t,z 82.,,
....qt,,,,/,,82,
,, s/2..,,,.,,,
6,f..,t,82 g/,.../,82 om>
nac ronu ais oo+n wacu o2n OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi--m.m
Mr. P. B. Fiedler l
e CC G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U. S. NRC 1800 M Street', N. W.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, D. C.
20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J. B. Lieberman, Esquire Commissioner Berlack, Israels & Lieberman New Jersey Department of Energy 26 Broadway 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10004 Newark, New Jersey 07102-Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator
, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsyl.vania 19406 J..Xnubel BWR Licensing Manager GPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
~~
Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 i
Mayor Lacey Township 818 Lacey Road Farked 31ver, New Jersey 08731 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Licensing Supervisor
~
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 e
+
g
O Systematic Evaluation Program Topic Assessment Topic:
III-3.C - Inservice Inspection of Water Control Structures Plant Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station Docket Number: 50-219 Prepared by:
J. Philip, Geotechnical Engineer, HGEB t
I.
INTRODUCTION i
The safety objective of this review is to assure that adequate and timely inspections of water-control structures, systems and components are accomplished to minimize the risk to public health and safety resulting from operation of nuclear power plants. The review specifically pertains to water-control structures (e.g., dams, reservoirs, conveyance facilities) built for use in conjunction with a nuclear power plant and whose failure could cause radiological consequences adversely affecting the public health and safety.
In general, to be included under this topic, the structure must have been built, wholly or in part, for the purpose of controlling or conveying water for either energency cooling operations or flood protection of a nuclear power plant. Such structures may be located on or off the site.
The scope of the review embraces the following subjects which are evaluated using data developed by the licensee and information available from all sources:
(a) Engineering data compilation; (b) Onsite inspection program and reports of these inspections; (c) Technical evaluation of inspection results; and (d) Frequency of inspections.
_m._
. II. REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria which are applicable are (1) 10 CFR Part 50 50.36, (2) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A including General Design Criteria 1, 2 and 44, (3) 10 CFR Part 100 and (4) 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
Pertinent regulatory positions contained in Regulatory Guides 1.27, 1.28, 1.127, 1.132 and 1.38 (Ref. 1) also apply.
Review procedures as contained in NUREG-0800-July 1981, Standard Review Plan Sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 (Ref. 2) are also used where appropriate.
III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The slope stability aspect of water-control structures will be reviewed under topic II-4.D.
Settlement of water-control structures will be reviewed under topic II-4.F.
Other interface topics include:
II-4.E, " Dam Integrity";
II-3.A, " Hydrologic Description"; II-3.C, " Ultimate Heat Sink"; III-3.A.
" Effects of High Water on Structures"; IX-3, " Station Service and Cooling l
Water Systems"; III-6, " Seismic Design Considerations"; XVI, " Technical Specifications"; and III-3.B " Structural and Other Consequences of Failures of Underdrain Systems."
l IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES l
In general the method for complying with specific portions of the Consnission's rules and regulatory positions as described in Regulatory Guide 1.127 is used in evaluating inservice inspection programs for water-control structures. Pertinent elements of the licensee's program
. are evaluated and compared to current criteria and the safety significance of any differences is evaluated. The practices of other public agencies for similar facilities posing similar public risk may also be used for applicable guidance.
V.
TOPIC EVALUATION The NRC staff consultant, Franklin Research Center (FRC), evaluated the submittal from the licensee, (Reference 1) and prepared the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (Attachment 1), entitled " Inservice Inspection of Water Control Structures," dated March 19, 1982.
l The licensee has, in general adequately identified the safety-related water control structures and the features that should be inspected except for the inspection of the slopes of the entire leggth. of the intake and discharge canal. This item should be added to the inspection program.
In addition, the integrated assessment of SEP topic II-3.B, " Flood i
Potential and Protection Requirements" may identify other water control structures (such as roof drains) that should be included in the inspection program.
It is the staff's and our consultants conclusion that the frequencies of the inspections identified by the licensee are adequate according to Regulatory Guide 1.127 criteria.
However, a revision in the licensee's present in-service inspection program for the intake structure trash racks I
1
. and intake screens is needed because of the occurrence of sea lettuce buildup which is likely to be a continuing phenomenon (TER Section 3).
The inspection frequency should be based on past and future buildup experience that would assure adequate water levels at the pumps.
t We also find that the licensee's inspection program should be formalized, as described in the attached TER Section 3.3), and should include the following:
a.
Availability at the site of a file of engineering drawings pertaining to the water-control structures.
b.
Development of a comprehensive file of inspection reports.
-~~
c.
Compliance with the requirement that the inspection program be conducted or overseen by qualified engineering personnel.
d.
Perform special inspection after extreme events (e.g., surges, hurricanes or earthquakes).
VI. CONCLUSIONS In order for the inservice inspection of water-control structures at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.127, the licensee needs to take the following actions:
1.
Include the side slopes of the entire length of the intake and discharge canals in the inspection program as noted in TER Section 3.2 and discussed in the foregoing Section.
i
5 2.
Identify other structures (roof drains) defined as flood control structures (Topic II-3.8) and include these in the inspection program.
3.
Revise the inspection program for the intake racks and screens as pointed out in TER Section 3, and in the foregoing Section.
4.
Formalize the inspection program as discussed in TER Section 3.3.3 and summarized in the foregoing section.
5.
The licensee should establish a program for technical review and evaluation of inspection reports, leading to renedial actions if significant changes are detected.
VII. REFERENCES 1.
The following U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guides:
a.
1.27, " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants" b.
1.28, " Quality Assurance Program Requirement (Design and Construction)"
c.
1.127, " Inspection of Water' Control Structure Associated with Nuclear Power Plants" d.
1.132, " Site Investigation for Foundation of Nuclear Power Plants" e.
1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants" 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Standard Review Plan," NUREG-0800, July 1981.
3.
Letter from M. Y. Nagai, Jersey Power and Light Co. to Mr. R. Fell, NRC Subject "SEP Topic III-3.C, Inservice Inspection of Water-Control Structures", November 4, 1981.
4.
Oyster Creek FSAR, Jersey Centrol Power and Light Company, November 1966.
.