ML20141K359
Text
_ _ . _ __ -. __. .. _ - .___ ~ - -- . . - _ _ . . - -
l o4t Kay 8, 1967
_m A':'t To ACRS Members From M. C. Caske. ACRS Staff
Subject:
REVIEW OF OY8TER CRERE RCCS l
i l
i On October 20, 1966, DEL forwarded a letter to Jersey Central power and 1,ight Co. concerning the results of the then recent construction parait reviews for boiling water reactors. DRL (ndicated that several major safety considerations would need to be evaluated in depth during the Jersey Central provisional operating license review. They stated, in particular, that special considera-tion should be given to the adequacy of the emnergency core cooling system.
Amendment No. 3, which was submitted by Jersey Central on January 27, 1967 along with the Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report, requested that the ACRS and the AEC Regulatory Staf f give priority to consideration of the proposed core cooling system during the operating license review.
The possibility of a separate review of the emergency core cooling system by the Regulatory Staf f and the ACRS prior to consplet!.on of review of other aspects of the facility was proposed by DAL at the April ACES Meeting. (DR1 has indicated that they may be prepared for review of the emergency core cool- .
ing system at the July ACRS Meeting, with review of remaining items to be completed arouna November of this year.)
DEL is giving the matter of a separate review of the emergency core cooling system turther consideration and desires to discuss this with the Committee at the May ACRS Meeting. The Subcommittee Chairman, Dr. McKee, will not be at the meeting. He has indicated, however, that an expedited ACR$ review of the emergency core cooling system without issuance of a Commaittee letter until i
the operating license review is completed would be acceptable to him.
I 1
Subject copy filed in Oyster Creek File 3
$ .i ) ', * );
~ i l y w.
omer > ACRS _,
I sumat > -.. - . - . i------ - --
og . . _ . . . . . .a .. --- -
_ _s , . a. .. _ . . ..... _ .. - . - . .
, s 9203190060 910807 PDR FOIA DEKOK91-282 PDR li/U' Q*4
)
t
, , od June 21, 1967 Pro j ec t,i Oyster Creek Unit No. 1
.f.. .
Jtatus .
Review of guergency Core Cooling System (It is presently antistysted that this portion of the reactor systen will be reviewad by the Commait t e e a t t he July ACES Me e t ing .) f Jackstoundt In Marifa 1964, Jersey Central submitted an application for authorisation to construct and operate the Oyster Creek reactor, ne reactor was to be provided by GE on essentially a turnkey basis. The ACR8 reviewed the project and issued a letter, dated August 28, 1964 ne letter noted that many details of the proposed design had not been completed. The Committee called attention to
[ 1.
ne applir ent was continuing study of Ilmitation of the maxiisua i
reactivity system.
worth of individual control rods and design of the reactor protection 2.
tional heat The dryval.
ree well and absorption pool might require provisions for addi.
l 3.
that wouldProvisions disrupt the should be made to prevent any hydrogen-oxygen reaction containment.
4.
The adequacy of the reactor protection system when operating at partial recirculation flow rates should be established.
e The DRL public eafaty analyais called attentton to the following areas which required of further consideration a construction permit. nose by the applicant and DL1, at or prior to issuance f areas were:
1.
Maximam allowable leakage rate of the pressure absorption systsa f 2. Design of nuclear instrumentation system 3.
Use of variable recirculation flow and effects on burrout ratios 4 Provisions for asargency power
- 5. Additional means of removing heat from containment in the event of an accident.
(
6.
that wouldManner disruptof preventing the possibility of any hydrogen oxygen rasetton containment 7.
The maxinsus worth of an individual control rod and of fs.ct en a red ajection accident
~6r-+6enitorittg pear-ligvf&vastv storagr7tak7 tuts j om:t > l.. ,,AQRS_ ., -!
.[. __ ..,_ _.
. . . _ _ _ , , , . _, I i
MCG:mg i
sunwt > . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . .
6/21/67 Dut> }
ec.:a o.n m 1
i
\ .
.-.........,..o..-,a a- wi r . -
j 1
i
( I status Report . Oyster Creek Unit 1 .Pune 11, 1967 r \
Following a public hearing, the Atomic gaiety and Liseastag Board senateded that it seuld not make a finding relative to operation of the reactor M power levels as high as 1600 Wt.
The Board required that, within 60 ears of the lattial Decision, sections of the contract between Jersey Central. ..
and Gg sogarding safety and design responsibilities be submitted' The .
loard also required that, within 180 days, information be provided conceraias the thermal design bases for the sore and related safety margins, and that the design and deve speental factors concerning the folleving be eubattted:
- 1. Absorption pool cooling
- 2. Containment system
- 3. Control rod drives 4 Interleeks
$. todine absorption and plate out e - Leak testing
- 7. Manual scram
- 8. Metal water reaction l 9. Reliability of power system for spray pumpe i 10.
11.
Reactor protection during eperation at partial recirculation flow Spray systers l
One interesting statement by the Board in its findings was "If the design follows conyentfoost to manipulatf M Mees . electrical engineering practice the breakers required i
. . .". . . are in turn all dependent upon the station battery l Accordingly,. the Board supplies inadequate " found "the degree of independence of power l
< The F.egulatory staf f and the applicant objected to the Board's requirement that further the information be submitted, but the board's requirement was sustatasd by Commission.
r The applicant subsequently provided the required inforestion.
The Board then concluded that it had a minimum but adequate basis for conclu+
i tion that the proposed 1600 Wt operation would b s acceptabla. The Board noted
- an increase in the proposed sies of the essergency diesel and sulgested that
! Installation of two smaller units might increast safety.
l On October 20, 1966, DRI. forwarded a letter to Jersey Central which pointed out the results of recent reviews of construction permit applications and
}
suggested core coolingthat special sonsideration be given to the adeguacy of the emergency system. Amendment No. 3, which was submitted on January 17, 1967 along with the Facility Description and safety Analysis Report, requested that the ACRs and the AEC Regulatory staff give priority to consideratica of the proposed core cooling system during the operating License review. A.t the May 1M7 ACKS Meeting, the Connittee agreed to perform a " pre review" of the proposed emergency sore cooling system.
\
'\
ontr> . .
I
\
. _.[__ _..
sumut > .
.I..._...-..
m&Rhw = = ~~ "
-= = ' = ~~
= = = - = = ~
.-..._m .. . _ _ . . - . - .
,. i
. i f
statua Report
- Dyster Creek Unit 1
- 3- June 11, 1M7
_Qvestiens
.. y o
1.
power level W.ta of were 1960 pressated Wt. at the construction perinit stags for a streh4 The Facility Description and gaiety analysis tapert new states operating condition of 1MO that most plant transient *t. The analyses have been made for the design rasson data are presented at 1HO Wt rather then the previous value of 1960 wt might be of interest.
2.
Attached is a list of questions mov routinely asked by Acts members relative to emergency cooling, emergency power and engineered asfeguards.
These
'the appear to provide a good basis for items to be dieeussed with DEL and applicant,
, 3.
There have been recent statements in the press regarding the ehertage of generating system.
capacity in the power grid which includes the Jersey Central applicant. The reliability of power from this grid might be discussed with the 4 additional
. DRL might be asked whether they envision that Akanges to the facility will be needed that require Imad times comparable to those for the changes DEL has suggested in their June 16, 1967 report to the Comunittoa.
i
, e e e I
i A
t I
e OUG > _. . . , ,
$URNAMC> ..,. , , _ . . . .,
DAff > '
.- .,,w. = = = = -
- = ===;== .
=- --
r ,------+me- - , - - - --w--,p--wy - - - - - - . < - - - - - , -w--rw-c,-e,e<---.---
i
( (
e (DRAl'I) 3/17/57 J1ST OF ACR._ QUESTIONS
- 1) Cons t rue t i on Pe rn_i t Stare
- 1) Tmcrg nev Cooling a) What provisions have been rnade to cont rol thermal shock to the i reactor pressure vessel shen emergency cooling is initiated?
b) What is the relationship between the time interval for en.crgency cooling to begin vc. damage to the core?
c)
Describe and justify the model for fuel failure modes predicted.
d)
, lias the insulation on the reactor pressure vessel been arranged to perrait cooling by flooding of the containment?
l 2) Emergency power a)
Describe the expected vs. required reliability of diesel generators starting under emergency conditions.
i Provide information on starting statistics f rom manufacturer, ability to synchronize when required, I
ability to pick up load, etc.
g b) What tests will be run to check out the entire system? (e.g..
simulated loss of incoming power, low frequency, etc.)
c)
In enough fuel stored on site for 7 days operation of the required emergency power supply?
d) la the emergency power supply, distribution system, etc., redundant in itself for handling the MCA or must reliance be placed on incoming
" purchased" power to provide redundancy for this sir.e accident?
e) What is the effect of loss of all off site power? Are redundant I
on-site provisions provided to prevent plant damage?
l 4
( (
- 3) Enrinected Saferuntdr
.a) Tor what period of time cnust engineered safeguards continue to operate following a tnajor accident? Is adequate access for snainte-nance, etc., provided .n view of the radiation ficids, temperatures, etc., which will exist?
b) Are the centrols, power supplies, sensing dc-vices, etc., which initinte ani cent rol operatlen of engineered safeguards redundant ,
diverse and physically separr'ed? Will they and the associated engineered safeguards functjen properly in the environment expected after an accident? What is the margin to failure with respect to humidi t y, t cmpe rat ure, pres sure , etc.7 c) What f racticn of the core can ec1'. and still be held by the reactor pressure vessel with the various cooling, flooding, etc.,
I syste:ns provided?
i d) What fraction of the core can melt before containment would be violated? What would be the consequences of such an accident?
e) What fraction of the fuel elements would have failed clad during the worst loss-of-coolant accident with and without outside power available?
f) What f raction of the engineered safeguards provided must function in order to control accident consequences as calculated? How much redundancy is provided in pumps, piping, controls, power supplies, etc.7 g)
Is adequate provision (nade relative to prevcation of flooding of areas where vital equipment is located (especially those located in sumps)?
e 2-
t
(_
r i .
( l q
'l
.[ . ..
h)-- ilow much margin .is provided in the design of core' spray, flood!ng .
-l system headers, etc., so that calculated blowdown forces will not reduce their effectiveness to a point where emergency core cooling
'4- ,;
- cannot be accomplished? I i,
I_
We I
-j._ a f
i I
t r
j
- ?
+
' r, t'
>O I
h
, . . , . , , -- ,. , . . , , , . - + , > ,-- , , .a, -
g,- , ..~. p
- .. _ - - . - _- - - - -, - ._ -. . . . - - - . . - _ ~ . - .
- at
(
QW 4
0I06:3p4, 7-M7 pre 1ent Oyster Creek Unit No.1 #["
.h a Discussion of Emergency Core Cooling system with tegulatory Staff ~
prior to further Subcommittee reviex. ,
Boekaround - Construction terwit stone:
In March 1964 Jersey Central submitted an application far authoritation to construct and operate the Oyster Creek reactor. The reactor wee to be pravided by CE ci essentially a turnkey basis. The ACRs reviewed the project med issued a latter, dated August 28, 1964. The letter meted that many details of the
, proposed design had not been completed. The Committee eslied attention to 3
- 1. The applicant was continuing study of limitation of the maximum i reactivity worth of individual control rods and design of the reactor protec-tion eyeten.
- 2. The dry well and absorption peol might require provisions for addi-
- t. ional heat rwaoyal. ,
1
- 3. provisions should be made to prevent any hydrogen. oxygen reaction that would disrupt the containment.
6, The adequacy of t'ae reactor protection system when operet mg at partN, we'renlation flow rates should be established.
The M pabi .c safety analysis called attention to the following areas which j reov'.nd 6: ther consideration by the applicant and DEL at- er prior to the icia,e the R.wi dt < tent.had teen completed . --These: areas were:
l
- 1. Anious allowable leakage rate of the pressure absorption system I
L f 2. Design of nuclear instrumentation systen 1
[ 3. Use of variable recirculation flow and effects on burnout ratics i 1 j 4. Provisions for emergency power i.
1
- 5. Additional means of removing heat from containment in the event of an accident.
- 6. Manner of prwventius the posaibility of any hydrogen-orygen reaction j
that would disrupt containssent
- 7. The maximum worth of an individual control rod and effect en a red ejection accident s l ~
v
- 8. Monitoring naar liquid waste storage tank vents OFTICE > .- . .. __ .
SURNAME > ... . . . . . . --
/ ___ =
DATE > i . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ ..r .....a m an m :auna. o e> ...........-.io -...
f
. - -. . . . . - - . - . - - - - .- - - - .- -. .- - - -- .- - ~.- -
, -)
( l 1
I 1
states Report - Dyster creek Unit 1 74 47 _.
F
- 1.'.^'
esp EhO$i. 1, Following a public hearias, the Atomic Safety. sad Licensias leard somenaded j ,
that it seuld not make a finding reistive to operation of the reacter et? -
power levels as high as 1600 MWt. The loard required that, withia _60 days ,
af the lattial Decision, sections of.the cos. tract between Jersey Central enJ Gg regarding safety and design responsibilities he sabeitted. tbs Board eleo required that, within 180 days, information be provided someersias the thermal design bases for i.he core and related safety margins, and _that the design and developmental factore concerning the fo11eving he sabetta;ed: ,
- 1. Absorption pool cooltas 2.- Contatssent system !
-l 3. Control rod drives
- 4. Interlocks
. ! 5. todine absorption and plate out
- 6. Leak testing
- 7. Meaual scram l 8. Metsi - water reection '
- 9. Reliability of power system for spray pumps
- 10. Reactor protection during operation at partist rect realation flew
- 11. spray system The Regulatory staf f and the appitcaat objected to the Board's regairement that further information be subuitted, but the Board's requireaeot was sustaine4 by the Cosemission. The applicant subseque1ntly provided the required Laformation.
. The Board then concluded that it had a statnum but adequate basis fer concle.
! .eton that the- proposed 1600 MWt operation would be seceptable. The Board meted an increase ta the proposed size of the erarscacy diesel and suggested that tanta11ation of two smaller units might-increase safety.
- seekzround - Doeratina Licenne Staae On October 20. 1966 DEL forvaded a letter to Jersey Central-shich potated ,
out the results t f recent reviews of sonstruction permit applications sad j wuggested that special consideration be given to the adequacy of the amargency cora cooling system. Amendment No. 3, which was submitted on January 27, 1967 I' ;' elong with the 7act11ty Besertption and Safety Analysis Repart, rMaested that
, the ACES and the A5C Regulatoty Staff give priority to consideration of the r proposed core cooling systse during the operating license review. At the Way 1967 ACRS meettag, t.he Committee agreed to perform a " pre-review" of the proposed emergency core coo 1 Lag system.
M1Lysevided a-report to the committee regarding the emergency core coolias system em June 16.-1967. The report contained the following findtage by DEL i-l oma> . - . = -- -
SURNAME >
. _ _ . ~ . - ~ .. - - . -
l _
nm > _
........_.....,L.._.._ . _ . , . _ . _.
rurra Arx>ati. (un. >49 ..........-n.. i.-err. -.
, I k
8tstas Esport - Oyster Creek Datt 1 -3= I* N I ~
f
(
):
A. ECOs Channes Reeutrod: -
[
,1
- provisions necessary for redundant es-site AC and,DC power soareas f -
7
. multiple sore spray system Lattistica en setuattee of BCCS
- additten of a high pressure injecties systesa l
) - gCCS capability to be (msuae from passive component fallers
- progres all four relief valves to opea en tattisties sigast.
W. Areas Requittaa Further f tudv s
- containment flooding i
- diversification la 3CCS initiation signals
- prnssure relief capability for resetor vessel b - low pressure fioeding or alternate cooling system.
The Oyster Creek Subcommitees met on June 22, 1967 and decided that sufficient information had not been developed for schedultas the applicant to appear at the July ACRS meeting. The Subcommittee concluded that DRI. should meet with the full Committee to discuss the Oyster Creek emergency coeltag system before further review of the matter with the applicaat by the subcommittee. The appli-cent was informed that he would be provided a list of questions and that anothu subcommittee meeting would be held prior to review of the amerdency aere cooling system with the applicant by the full Committee. Following the June it. 1967 subcommittee meeting. DEL was asked to providetteir analysis of the off= site radiation doses which might result from accidents tuvolving a small break in the reactor prMey system. This was furnished by DEL, La na informaties Report to the Cosmetttee, dated June 30, 1967.
i l
$: , r, -
i .. **ee Q,d?
id [.
Q. . K .'
OFTICE > . . . . . .. - --
SURNAME > .. .
DATE > . . . . . . .. - . . . - - . . - . - - . . - - - . . . . - - . -
Form AEC-818 (Rev.1HC) e. a. e.es===ane rewtm. aus to-enas-a
3 -
j July 17, 1967 Project: Dyster Creek J13133, t Operating License Reviaw g n*
b w. ,
Sacharound: ,
Jersey Septral requested that the ACR8 and the ABC Rasulatory Staff giviiDk i '
priority to consideration of the proposed emerseccy more saeling system during the operating license review. DL1, provided en analysis of the caergency core cooling system, and the system was reviewed by the Dyster Creek subcommittee on June 22, 1967. The Subcommittee oescluded that the system was not yet ready for review with the applicant by the full Committee.
At the July ACES meeting. the Committee discussed the status of the emer8ency j core cooling system review with the Regulatory Staff. It was agreed that t the Subcoursittee would develop a complete understanding of the espabilities of the emergency core cooling system and that, when the Subcommaittee fea16 it is appropriate, the matter would then be considered by the full Cessaittee.
On July 14, 1967, DE forwarded a letter to Jersey Central stating that, although their review has not been completed, DRL has concluded that the following changes to increase the effectiveness of the BCCS may be desirable or necessary:
- 1. Additional protection for the small break regions; .,
- 2. Provisions for an additional electromagnetic relief valve in the Auto-Depressurisation System;
- 3. Modifications to the ECCS piping complex; 4 Provisions in the on-site AC and DC power systems to protect against the of'.icts of single failures;
- 5. Initiation of both core spray systems upon actuation of the ECC8.
DRL also identified four areas where further information would be neccesary for DRL to continue their review.
Queations i 1. The June 16, 1967 DRL report contained the following findings by BE.
It appears it might he worthwhile to discuss with DEL the status of the review regarding these items.
(1) RCCS Changes ts. quired; 2 A. Provisions necessary for redundant on-site AC em 30 power sourcas y;y '
s A- ,
S. M.ticiple core spray system initiation on actuation of wern ,
wvww OFTICE > . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . - . . . . . . .
EURNAME > ....
. . . . . . , . ~ . - - . . . . . . . . ~ . . .
DATI $ . . . . . . - . . . . . .
pJ2L
. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . - . . .
N - - . .
's t
( ,
\
.'
- t Project status Report - Oyster Creek
~
- 2- Asty 27,1M7 C. Addition of a his'a pressure injection system Ih-L D. ECC8 capability to be immmane from passive aoW H failure gif I E. Program all four relist vaivas to open es initiation
, stanal
{
( 2) t.reas Reeutrina Purther Study:
A. Containment flooding
- 3. Diversification in RCCS initiation signals C. Pressure relief capability for reactor vessel D. Low pressure flooding or alternate esoling systems
- 2. It might be desirable to discuss the stack' release rate limit d ich I Jersey Central plans to propose for the facility.
t $ $ 6 e
4
(
i-
?
~
g', . g
. ? ?4?b 7 l[ .
,..k+]$
- ' f aj*c OfflCE > -
SUMMAME) __ --
DATE > ; ..... . . . . . _ -
Farm ABC-818 (Rev.1HI3) e. s. eve-=* ave mena. . rem to-arist a
r 05]
3 TEltfATIVE AGENDA yog ,7l
{ o.y '
I . ,9 i OY8TER CREEK SUSCOsMitTEE SITE VISIT i' l- ,
l -
a l JULY 18, 1967 t
l-l l- 8:00 - 11:00 Tour of reactor sad site l-1 t
11:00 - 11130 Return to Yose River 11:30 - 12:00 Discussion with DILL regarding status of their review l 12:00 - 12:45 Lunch 12:45 - 1:15 Presentation by applicant regarding site related questions l
L 1:15 - St00 Discussion of site and estersency sore cooling systee l questions l
3:00 (approximately) Transportation will be provided to Philadelphia and l Newark Airports l
l l
l-
! 1
!- t l l l-I i
I l
l M
.u m t de Ibay. _
t0,
.- 2/.n- a t . . . . . . . . .
l
__.1.... . . ...., . . _ . , _ . .
pe l
L . . . . .
D j
I L
p n y.,
OYSTEP. CREEK SURCONKITTRE METING f.(l;d-
% i:..
JULY 26, 1967' td SE Jaren Central T. Bloom 1. Fimfrock R. Gile D. Retrick R. Nuggina W. Lowe, Counsel P. Ianni T. McCluskey i E. Kratz J. Neely A. McCrocklin E. Newtot l
-l R. McWhorter D. Reese i R. Poe C. Rittar
.I 1. stewart L. Roddie G. Trowbriage, Counsel Jerulatory Staf f Burns & Roe
)
E. Boyd J. Arther
.l W. Hall, Consultant G. Lari H. Rosen B. Mobile
- 1. 8pickler V. Stello R. Tedesco I
i E
i I'
l l :-
1 orr a > _ . ...._ . ..
sonsAut > .. .
DATE> ... .._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . , . .. .
Form AEC 818 (Rev.H3) e.s. :...m ,.., .,ma 16-met-s l
.