ML20141K436
Text
- . - , -__~. . . - - - - - . - - - . ---
(, .
< , 09 5.E ;
I l
October 30, 1968 la;q
-y .,
t
\
Acts Members I 1
MINUTRS y0R OCTOBE!: 24, 1968 DRL MENTIE REGAEDIE TItt OffTER CEEEE UNII NO.1 REACTOR FRESSURE VESSEL Attached are minutes for the above seating. All of the areas of the !
(
Oystsr Creek reactor pressure vessel which have intentanular aracking I or which have been exposed to conditions that might cause intersranular cracking will be repaired er covered with everley. CE s ta ted tha t they have a higher confidence in the reliability of the Oyster Creek pressure
, vessel than in any they have previously used is rametor facilities.
We final hydro was performed at 1875 psi. We control rod drive field welds were 100'. inspected using ultrasonic testing and dye penetrant
{ testing prior to the final hydro. Af ter the hyJro, 70 of the field welds
, were dye penetrant tested and 8 of the field welds were ultrasonically <
tested.- DRL may want 100% testing of these welds by dye penetrant and ultrasonic methods.
Dr. Morris stated that the Regulatory Staff needs to know what repairs ;
, have been made to the pressure vessel and why they are acceptable. GE replied that they are willing to be judged by the infonention that they
, were submitting in koendment No. 43.
l Jersey Central is not proposing to carry out an in-service inspection progree thct approachss the thoroughness of the roccuamesdations of the
- N-45 Subcoussittee. DEL plans a meeting with the applicant to review the 1 reasons that the N 45 subecueittee recoureendations are not being used a6 a guideline t'or the in-service inspection program.
Signed Ra.rvin C. Geste M. C. Gaske, Assistant to Exec. Secretary
Attachment:
Minutes of D!tL Oyster Creek File: Oyster Creek Unit No. 1.
Meeting Held 10/24/68.
omer , ACBs.. .. . . . . _ . .. . . . . ... . . . . . .
smwc > CG:hmd .
om > . 10.30-68 runn ac.au tan. nu
.n_,_,,_,_,,_,,
._ j 9203190281 910807 ,r f
}
S/ /(g ? I DEKOK91-282 PDR .
i 1 I l
i i
October 29, 1H 8 .ru. .
t
. pl -
h.4.
- p.
- k.;' , s -. '
laCUIATORY STAF7 MEETDr) 005CttpIE i
prtTER CAttr ptzssuRE vassrt 9CT@tt 24.1968 f
l The en AEC24,Regulatory October 1968 staff held a sneeting with representatives oet a1 o Creek Unit No. 1.
Present at this meeting were the followlagtto l er Div. of Reseter Licensity Jersey Central Power & Lisht Co.
R. S. Royd _
P. A. Morris I. 1. Finfrock L. Porse p, 3. sees F. Schroeder C. R. Ritter V. Stello H. Wettathahn CPU
~
l Hemulation L. H. Boddis, Jr.
l H. L. Price KPR Associates
,R. L. Doan I. H. Handit V. R. deheidt Div. of compitanco jhav & Pittman l W. J. Co11tas l J. C. Reppler C. Charnoff
, L. Eornblith C. V. Reinmuth General _tteetrie ACRs staff J. Sarmard J. R. Graham H. C. Caska A. M. Rubbard R. Holt C. laen
- s. Raymark OWL > . . . - - -
- * * ' * * * * * ' ~ ~ * * ' ~ ~ ' ' ^
""~~""""""
gg,
. . . . . . . . . . - - "--- -* * * ' ~ * " ' * " " ~~" "
Daft > + --
" un "- * - ~ ^ - " " " * " " " ' '
_m........-,
_* , ' , . . . . , = . . , . _ _ .~ - .-- ..- --
I
( (
Mr. Eeymark stated tbt all of tb areas of the trassure vessel tedeh had beans found to have intergranular cracking or which have be4n wayesed to seesditlese (nat might sause intergrunular cracking will be repaired or severed with eger.
lay. Laboratory experiments have besa conducted to assure that the repaig teark has been adequate. All of the repaired areas have been dye penetreet theebed, Albo, all of the stub tube field welds have been ultrasLonically tasted. Der, Nayserk statM that the fabrication stresses exceed those that will be applied to the vessel during reactor uperation. The pressure 'ressel was hydrostatisally tested at 150; of the design pressure, armi the vessel did aiot leak at that pressure. Following the hydro, additional dye ;wnstrast checking eas sarried out, and no further defects were found. Mr. Naymark stated that GE bstieves that thE acceptability of the repairs has been justif1W$. Mr. Raymerk SISo i stated th3t he believed that CE has a higher confidence in th rettability of I
the Oyster Creek pressure vessel than any that they have previously used.
i r
All of the sensitized safe ends will be rep 1 seed or covered with overley easterial
' both on the ins ide and ou tside . No further hydrostatic testing of the pressure vossel is conteupisted, however. Mr. Esymark said he believed that, in all cases of repairs, the requirements of Section 3 of the ASME Code or the intent t.f section 3 had been met.
In a report regarding, stress analysis of the Oyster Creek pressure vessel, a picture is presented showing the core support ring wild as being a full reme-tration weld. DEL indicated that thy did not believe that this represented the actual case and that fillet velds had been used. The question was raised as to the ef fect on the stress analysis results if fillet welds were used. CE reportM that the use of ruch welds had been considered is the analysis rather than full penetration vulda.
Mr . S t e l l o s ta t ed i t wa s h is und e r s t a nd ins tha t , even if the core support ting failed, the applicaat would place no restriction on reactor operation. Mr.
koddis replied that this was true s The applicant has been inforwod by CE that failure of the ring would not af fnet safety, arxi Jersey Central's own analysis c onf iran th is . Mr. Roddis said that cuaplete disintegration of the core support
, ring does not appear credible.
Mr. toddis reported that there were up to 50 ppu of chlorides in the votar used i
during the second hydro; however, an additive was placed in the water to neutval-
- l. ise the chlortdes. He thought that there was no reason to suspect any chloride attack during the second hydro. Mr. Hayciark stated that it hoo not been assu ed that the presencu of chlorides during the first hydro caused a probism. The chlortdt content of the reactor water will be loss than 1 pps during normal operation.
Mr. Stello inquired whether a cumplete list of the sensittaed stainless steel that will be in contact with the prir.ary systen is available. Mr. Wayaart, stated that this had been identified in Amendment No. 35. Mr. Stello said that SUPhWE >
l I
Uml8[I Ii ' ~
i 4
( '
ha understood that there is sin some sensittsed matecial in the feedw hasters.
kr. Roddis pointed out that every wid is sensitissed to some assboet '
but that, mot a problers. because of the short parted of time that heat is applied, this la '
Mr. Roddis said that he te refubind to hart any furanee const=
He said that he ws giving a speech rsgarding furnace s wel.
Dr. Morris stated t. hat he was trying to undarstand the basis en which it had J been decided not to parform a 100% taapection regarding the control rod drive velds following the last hydro test.
i j
the test were neuch lower than some areas of the entrol rod drive ho perienced during the fabrication process.
has been on Lusutius that darsage did not occur during fabrication.Mr. Rayma i
Hr. Roddis said that GK and Jersey Central both believe that the Oyster Creek 4 reactor pressure vessel is as least as good as originally intended. Mr. Roddis indicated that the primary system is not very amenable to surveillance, kr.
believe is approprista for a resetor of the Oyster Creek vin Addittamal surveillance has not been proposed to coopensate for the history of tha pressure vessel.
l Mr. Roddle said that, at th'. most recent Acts subetsumittee meeting re-garding the Oyster Creek reactor, Jersey Central had been sas.ed to compare their proposed in-service inspection requirmsents with those of the N-45 Subconsmittee.
He stated that the N 45 Subc<manittee requirements are a moving target and thrt he believes that sorae of their proposed requirements are imay,)ropriate.There have out forbeenindustry fourcum:
versions rents. of the requirements, md the latest version is to go out only a small portion of the N-45 Subconsmittee requireaants.The ap h Mr. Stallo inquired as to how the decision had been reached that it is not
- necessary avar to inspect the core spray nortles. It was reported that the
, ! main steain nott,les are available for x-rsy but not the rest of the mocales.
! ! Mr.
system Stello inquired nortles is notas to the rasson a visual inspection of the core spray proposed.
I
- Mr. Raidis indicated that accessibility was f not the considera tion. only problem ani that the radiation exposure of personnel is a major i Hr. Roddio stated that he did not believe that the N 45 Subcomesittee require-amants should be applied in the case of the Oyster Creak rosetor. Mr. Case stated that these requirements are intended for plants to be designed. Irr. Doan inquired vbether Jersey Central wccid be willing to adhare to the R-45 require-ments to the axtent that accessibility permits.
Mr. Roddis said that be believes and that they do not contribute to safety,that some portions of the ,
Dr. Morris stated that the Regulatory Staff is attempting to determine how the opplicant service arrived at inspection program.his position regarding what should be include # (a the in-Mr. Case reported that the 5-45 Subecer .se in on a J' . _ .-3... - - - - - -
I syphaWE > ) . . .
-~ - - - - "
DATE > . . . . . . . . . .
namaw.saou m .
- n ; . a; - :n= r nu x.n .;n =n=1_= r-~ '" T2-n m .w ,w.m m n e,v..a
l i
t
( (
i to set up a group for interpreting the requirensets set forth by the 84eessulttee.
Mr. Prias inquired regarding the inspection progree regardiet the stab tubes.
OE reportsid that the field wlds had been 1001 inspected using ultrasemis esottaa aM dye penetrant testing prior to the Imat hydre teht. Af tar the hydre use per.
fermed, 79 of the field wlds are dye penetrant tested and 8 of the fleM sdes were subjected to ultrasonic teottag. CE reported that approximately 3 or 4 stub tubes could be ultrasonic 411y tasted per day. Mr. Roddia reported that testing operationa have stopped and assembly of the rasetor internals has son-menced. Mr. price inquired whether there are other ultrasonic testa that perseas might believe should be performed. He stated that the problem of testing gena back to Kay or J .no of this year when the Cawnission considered stopping the repair program until it could be exantined. The Cementeston went along with the
, applicant's strong feeling that he visted to proceed with repairs with the idea hat the repsirs atignt not be ensidered acceptable. We s ta ted that, new tha t f the applicant has cowleted the repair work, what he had been worried ebeut has come to pass. There is a strong feeling among nenbers of the Reguistory Staff
{ that a 100% dye check and additional ultrasonic testime la moeded. Na stated
... . tha t , in light of the history of the Oyster Cre6ek project, he was not very Le. (
l, pressed with the fact that the rgactor was about to be buttoned up. Mr. Naymark i
asid that CE would like to have / positive responsa regarding the acceptability of the repair pro; ram. Mr. Price said that the Regulatory Staff would be glad to give a positive response if adequate information is furnished in writing and that such a response could have been given befors now had this information been provided. Mr. Naynark stated that he had had no feeling until the last few days that what was bein. done. 'cesarding the repair and inspection program saight mot.
be acceptable to the Conission. Dr. Morris st4ted that the meesssary informa-tion has to be provided to the Regulatory Staf f and sufficient time given for the Regulatory Staff t.; rasch a position and then have the matter reviewed by g the siCES. He stated that he did not want to receive another telegram stating that the Rekelatory Staf f we holding up the applicar.t. Mr. Naymerk said that l the ASME Code outlines the required inspection program. Dr. Morris stated that the Regulatory St.af f needs to know what has been done and why it is acceptable.
CE reported that a dossment (Amendment No. 43) describing their inspection pro-grats for the pressure vessel repairs was being filed that day. Mr. Price said that he believes it necessary that the applicant document what DEL and the ACES are to reviuv. CE reported that they are willing to be judged by what they were submitting that day.
} The applicant does not plan to tsar down and inspect valves periodically. Mr.
Case pointed out that the N-45 Subcoarnittee requirements are that one velve of aach type be disassoa. bled each 10 years. Mr. Roddis stated that this type of inspection is not perforn.ed in conventions 1 power plants even tl ough prevanta-tive maintenance is carried out in such plants.
4 Mr Royd 'takad whether, since the N-45 Subecessit taa requirements are for meetr vesseis Wich ars constructed using improved quality control proceduras, ese abould conclude that a better in-service inspection is needed for the oyster Creak pressure vessel than t.he N-45 Subcouraittee requirements. General Electric oma, i *4-EUR'tAHf> -
_ . _ . _ . _ _ DO N I . .__
_ _ _7 C" * "O tbrin A tl.M k f b( 40 g ,, y gg ,' g , 3_
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -_ _ _ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----~ - - - ^ - ~ ~ ~
I (
indicated that they t41a exception to the Lafarence that the Oyster Creek facility does not represent a high quality plant. It was stated that, if 44 . ,
l were met a high quclity plant, General Electric would met wat it go se an eervice. SI indicated that if the plant were substasiar11 it would be 1ste thes ;
they bed contracted to build sad that they sould not permit that situatise to l exist. Mr. Roddts stated tha t, if anything approachlag the N-45 Subemanitsee l
requiremnants is anticipated for the Oyster Creek reector, it is enacceptable '
and that it will be 11terally imposeible to carry wem eut. Dr. Morris oog-gested that another meeting be held to review which items in the primary system are and which are not accessible for inapection.
Mr. Price inquirs.d as to the reason that shear wave ultrasonic tasting was not i performend frors the inside nurface of the control red drive housings. OE indi- I i
cated that such testing night be worthwhile. Mr. Price inquired as to the {
' reason the number of finid wlds that were dye penetrant inspected was iteras**d from 32 to 79. CE reported that they believe>d that the testinc of 32 of the j
field welds was adequate. The Rasulatory staff wanted snore performed, so the inspection crew wee told to perform as many additional dye penetrant tests as ;
they could in two days. This amounted to 47 edditional tests.
Mr. Roddis said that it appears that the basic objective is to prove that the pressure vessel is as good as or better than originally designed. He believed I
that it was the responsibility of CE to prove this to che Ec;;ulatory Staff sad the ACES. .
Mr. Price inquired as to the resson that both of the valves in the line to the amargency condenser are on the outside of the drywell. CE reported that the design was found to be such that there was not enough roore inside the drywell, so both of the valves where plaend on the outsida. As the design progressed, however, the arrangement of pipe runs was changed still further and it might l now be possible t.o install a valve in the drywell. Mr. price inquired as to 8 the cost in time and seney should a valve have to be placed inside the drywell.
CE reported that an additional Salve would have to be procured and that, if the valve were insta11od af ter operation begins, installation would take place in a radioactive area. Mr. Roddis suggested that, perhaps, the core would have to be unloaded to permit installation af ter reactor operation commencas.
' Mr. Price stated that it had been approximately one year since Jarm *entral was almast ready to operate the Oyster Creek rasetor. He questioned the reason that the Technical Specifications had not been corepleted. Mr. Roddis said that a third couplete redraf t of the Technical specifications is being completed. He reported that part of the problems la that no one really knows what is wated.
Mr. Price stated that the theory of the new style Technical specifications was that it would provide flexibility. Ele said that he was not sure that it would not be better to have an arbitrary system and suggested that parhaps this skos14 be reviewed. Mr. Raymark said that the bases are praring to be particularly 4ifficult te write. Mr. Roddis yainted out that the Techaleal Specif testises, including the bases, represent a larger docuaent than the old detailed typa of Technical Specif tentions. ,
DF T K t >
eee
, ,, . 3 . ,, . -
I smar > . _ _
09r>j !
Nnn AW.8te iha 9 m x.. _
_ m_m. e, m .
e
i
(
095, 11/11/M b'*i .51, c
Prehsti Dyster Creek Datt No. 1 k?/d Status _i 'Prowtatemal Operstias 1.teense tegnestad h!"
b h revedt he applissttee for a pewtatsmal operettag 116amme Ser ebe oyster creek usector has bs far been semandered at etz subeammittee and three tw11 Camaf,ttee meettags. Att= bed La as enserpt from tbs Summary of the movember LM4 Acts uneties. His esserpt lista the items diesessed at the smeettag med the reselvtten of seek ites. De applLment has been taformed that he should be prepared to give a protestatten and to dtoewes the items 4 1sh are 1 Lated La the seeemd atteshment.
! PRL hererta j
' DEL has provided hopert me. S to the Acu. Sta repart Ladisetas setta.
faction with the pressure vessel repairs 414h have been smede. As medt-tional remt by bat ta mattet sted t next tseek and will dioensa vertens ieanw A te.h haya met yet been resolved.
Attechnen to :
- 1. F.xcerpt frars Suonnery of Em 2 = 1MB ACES >ttag.
- 2. H. C. Caska seene, dtd 11/19/63.
l
.i File: Dyster Creek Unit #1 i
OFFICE > ., .
- - - -- - ~ ~ - - *
$ URN Ahtt > .,.
- - - ~ - -
,_ . .. .?. .? >. ... .._=. ur:==: :=:=: , ; . *
u== w== '== ====*====*'* *
...' _=-_'==L- = .
- p
- l
) )tems Discussed at November 1968_ ACR$ Meetine and Results of Discussions I
i l
j a. Emergency Core Ceoling System -resolved (more or less).
j b. Steam line isolation valves -unresolved, testing continues, a quertion
! remains on actuator operation in accident enviromnent.
l
! c. Emergency condenser isolation valveo--unresolved, more next meeting.
j Applicant to be asked to consider a study regarding installaticn of a
- valve inside the dry well.
) d. primary system leak detection--unresolved, applicant is not using all I i
techniques available to him, response to a detected leak (investigate l st 15 gpm) is not satisfactory. '
l
! e. Steam dryers--resolved, design satisfactory.
I
- f. Inservice inspection--unresolved, more next month, i
l g. Maximum flood height--resolved, inconsequential discrepancy between
,i ! applicant and Staff exists.
i i
I h. had position indicatien--mentioned but not discussed. '
- i. Radiolytic decomposition cf w.?ter--unresolved, testing at Humbolt Bay i f continues, draft report on sources of hydrogen due about Nov. 22, 1968.
i
- j. Increased rod worths due to being left fully inserted--resolved, vender
( claims condition no worse than any previously analyzed.
- k. Operator training and competency--unres01 sed, more at next meeting.
i
- 1. Reactivity anomolies--unresolved.
I , m. Technical Specifications--unresolved, more at next meeting.
I l
- n. Reactor Vessel repairs -mentioned but not discussed, major item to be discussed at next meeting.
i o. Inspection of Reactor Vessel repairs--unresolved, more at next meeting.
i i
, i r
4 t r
i
. .1 e _ -,,,,- ,,- ,-- n e, ,,,n n e
(
2 p.
< Corrosion surveillance of reactor vessel-- mentioned but not discussed.
- q. Instrumentation and control-- mentioned but not discussed.
- r. Cable tray loadings-- unresolved, more next meetiag.
i
- s. Battery room layout-- unresolved, more next meeting, ,
h t.
Fuel clad shatte !ag-- unresolved, vendor beluc es has traced to oxygen dif(:sion into inte nticies.
I
- u. Auto-relief interlock-- unresolved, more next meetiro. l l
t r
1 f -( ,
l '
1 l
( ,
I I
4 ,
I l
I 1
1 .
_ ,_ . . , . . . , , - ~~