ML20244E141

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards H Denton to RW Staehle Re Recommendations for Course of Action to Be Taken for Repair of Safe Ends on Reactor Vessels of Utils for Committee Use
ML20244E141
Person / Time
Site: Dresden, Nine Mile Point, 05000000
Issue date: 05/02/1970
From: Morris P
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Hendrie J
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML17055E652 List:
References
FOIA-89-101, FOIA-89-114 NUDOCS 8904240313
Download: ML20244E141 (1)


Text

,

.A,

t 4-e d

. -,. u' ft.,; A e

.... a,

  • . n.
y..

e.

mr ~ '

3 ~"~M '- ~ l'- f -

s gy.h( '?m%fjbf y:.$.t c is,1,' 7[,,.

7.y q,

.pi,i w ama.. >

m.

a c:4 r.._.

M., m

@gm, e m.

. a.s.pu o. ww%. mar so, levo

-e m

..x

.. 4

.;.. ;-i w

  • A m

y

+

v~

e.g

_{,,

,; R

'" q, h,K.,"*

c

  • h.>.

.c

. n...

a;

~.n y c

r. -

p.s,

.,. 3 A e.

v..

m.

.,. =

,,z[y ; n,:

s 2 -;

3 g,';

77 w,

Br',JJoeoph M. Eendrie Obstraan, Advisory comm?/,ittee, ii )

~

"E. i

+'

s on,Rosator Safeguards w_J W. S.-Atomie Energy Commissies:("9 g7j~,

Q', g. w,y,

.. _..y

~

~ d:

J Washington,.D. C.

30645

.. g s

.a.

Dear Dei Eendries i

i.~ :

Eighteen copies of a letter.to Harold Deaton from

.U:

. _.._. R uW. Staehle,, dated.May118,' 1970,.

' ' recommesadations'fora' course ~of action to be taosaceraias., ken yf.y..cyg.

^-^

for the repair of safe ends es the resetor vessels of Dresden 2 and Nine Mile Point, are enclosed for the use of the Committee.

"C

.Am Biseerely,-

e.4m p,.w

_;.y s.

^

is s

p

.m wsow?' n;;.o...s.

a.

' Peter A.. Morris, Director

...,.,. ~.

.q_,,,,,

i Reteter.-

asingr mo

-.9 e, l NW y.n l. q y y

~

R!w.-

gangee,y,,,

~

,c As stated G

Distribution:

HLPrice, DR Compliance 1-=

DR reading C

DRL reading RLTedesco, DRL NO' EGCase, DRS

<.n 1;

e 9

omer >

...D.R..L.......

V sunawr >

..P.4Mor ri s/b.b..

04Tr >

_5/2.0/70 Forse ABC-SIS #Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 e a novaemmang ewerimo orrecs e ssee.-ase-us

[

h1 8904240313 890413

[/

PDR FOIA WETTERHB9-101 PDR

i

)..

m.

y i

%,), 4 3,7.u g
I R..W. Stachic.

.i k

o;, 9 4.-

,y l'

l 5060 Havens Corners Roal W@p}.fm l. a*......(

.6

.%s Gahanna, Ohio t

is

. j

. g 2.d'+

t.

,h Pkfb%

t reply:tos Dr. R. W. Staehlc., g The Ohio State Univ.

.f.f !& p,.

. !,F wm

f. ;..,$.,,: - /.

.' ;.. ~..

3 a116 W.'19th Avenae, Dept.. of Met. - Engr.y my -

,p,

,g p,

[ Columbus, Ohio _43210

..p

^qJy

r.

y- /. 9

y wo Qq 18 Maye*1970 y% ;

.s, 2,. y ;p y p.a.'

i. -

g f 'g f.'.@ @^..l. 7 4..Gfj! 't. n . ac - r. r. 'b Mr. Harold R. Denton, Chief. ~ ^ 9,2

o l

' Technical Support Branch j p@ '1 U.' S.. Atcmic Energy Ccumission ' Division of Ccapliance. a, j.y . Washirgton, D. C. 20545 4,, pw M. 2

Subject:

Course of Action on Repairs for Dres-len -2 St Nine Mile-Point' u a j

Dear; lbrold:

1: @6 M. -1 gg l < On May 14 you requested my reccmnerdations for a course of action ' to be taken for the repair of safe ends on the reactor vessels of D; e Dresden -2 an$ Nine Mile Point. The purpose of this letter is to transmit g' b these reo:mmenlations together with their justification. In addition to M w. 4 @. Ik these reco.mundations I have included suggestions for measures to be N? I C. , g~ig..... taken to reduce the' likelihood of spurious cracking. ., :, e ~ ! < 9 E,c Primary Reccnnendations l )M% F . -fiff The recommendations here are contingent upon the kini of " failure" 4 a which the AEC wishes to avoid: ~ e w l.

1..For example, if it is desirsi to avoid the inciderce of any transgranular stress corrosion cracking, then.it is becessary to replace all stain 3ess steel pipin; with either a higher

$, M. ~ . nickel alloy, a ferritic stainless steel or a duplex alloy. l 5 h 2df In my opinion this is an unreasonable criterion in view of ?@ the econcmic implications. Itrever, it must be kept in mini that ircidences of transgranular cracking are always likely 9jh in austenitic stainless steel systems and extreme care must i w.- i t s w

4.;w 7

9 $wip* v i . g -n L s-yyt. -44*s Dh// o am s a g e 8 w w w' V * * ' * * .. _, g .x N Y*b p g,

  • r*

4, s mW

ri ..g tu ph ~'- ' .~ f. be exercised to avoid this phenonenon. . ;.[ 3.. ": O - 2. If it is' desihed to avoid only the' type of cracking observed. N 4 ? M in the first failure of the safe end at Nine Mile Point,, _c 4 mf y then a different course of action is appropriate. It'is my [ , r.J,.. * '. operating asstunption, and I think it is the only reasonable' L

p.,

one, that the cracking which ms observed could have lead to.. '? .;c,., a large' rupture during a thornni transiens. Ibwever, it'

f. c

.is not appropriate here to cotment on the consequences of ^ 'g Your interpretation of this is auch areL. - n It is my contention that such' a failure can%',r..a,.. p ( the large rupture. R '6 expert than mine. 9' ' result andithat there is a reasonable posaih414 ts initial 1 'y, k"'. 1A stages would not be detected. Tims, it 'inot. ' sufficiently'{ ~, , f'., fee it.to be' detected before the major fe e occurs. F' f- '~. e. fy?%%, U.. J If the AEC considers' that such a failure must.be avoidedHh; T' & s? s'. ~ then I reccnneni that: c bdan"M ' t z e. ;- en - y 3 m. ..c )). 4 a.,; 7. f, - a. The intergrarular inode of sensitized 800 be considered ( ~ ~ as leading to the extensively penetrated cracking.of the- ? ^ + type observed at INP and IACBWR. 7

a.,

i e. 1 .. b'. The AEC should require that all safe, ends be replaced _,_. WM :c ~ ' either with' solid so:tions or weld"overlayed inside' ~ ard outside. Mfi W 1 c. The AEC should require that a cordition for replacement . ifC - p

  1. d is that the licensee demonstrate (by test results) the adequacy of the replacanent material ^and prcccdure' l

. M. a t > .l,l through agreed upon tests. Incidentally, scme of these tests may be aircady canpleted. These tests"should~ EQ !.1(. ' demonstrate (l) that the new material will resist ^ SOC

gi i

'N in' the fonn used'in the replacement ard' (2) that the ..., [T.' . configuration used will not be subject to prematuie ' ~ y ~ ;r 1.- Jy [.; 5 other am.v.iate ma:hanical requiranents..l shock, fatigue f 'J. ,f . failures as a result of therma 3 yb

g.
  • nd.. The'nost reasonable replacement raterial is probably' 0;f

~ Type 308L mld deposited materialisince this has had . 3Q. wide use as weld overlay material. Acceptable materials ) f M, would also irclude Incoloy-800 and Inconal-600 providing that other defects are not introduced.. The 308L hast j ~ ; 1.. ' the disadvantage relative to the other two materialail.. ' of a ready susceptibility to transgranular SCC in chloride NIk environments. The uncertainties in the latter two materials involve their behavior in the weld sensitized h condition with resps.ct to intergranular ECC in the water b(m E -0 envir naents. ' 2 .m M ~ b.e + i c n. 4. 4 ,y g-sm ~.. - - -.ef 4 a Q.J~ 3 _ n_ ~ ..r *' < : l

3-. N)1$cing the repairs the syste ' ust be hydrostLtically. i n. wa t.u.l. n s : l )7 f a d i N I believe that in its regulatory capacity the AEC has no choics )

py) but to require repair of all safe erds. The pattern of oo:urrerce of failures contains elements of frequency ard unpre51ctability y

which cannot be denied. Regardless of the detailed rationalization W of the cracking ard attenpts by various parties to obfuscate the issues, the fact renains that this cracking is cccurring with grt it frequercy .o;. "y QNP, IACBE, Oyster Creck) in sensitized stainless steel, that' the J l crackiry is extensive, and that it was not predicted. Frau a j management point of view one nust corclude that, regardless of,the. %+d b stress analysis or any other int *4mtely smalirrating fixes'ori. $jbf5 ;, calculations, there is a high probability of failures occurrirg again; 1 (.7 further, there is the reasonable prokhility that one of the failures y "*Y be ** o9$n ended type-ypg 1 f4 Secordary Rc:ommerdaEions 1 ,W.. x 4 -l There are a number of other reconnendations which should be considerai at this time. While they are rot as imnaliately critical as the primary 2;t.a($}, l reccamordations above,. I believe that they should be seriously considered !l l and chould form the basis for action taken in the near future.. um I r; La ; 1. Consideration should be given to the development of improved i alloyc for service in reactor vessels ard pipirq. Those present.ly 3; l availablu montinue to exhibit problens. Two areas in which ^ work might k-urdertaken are the duplex alloys ard the high >j pp ' i purity ferritic alloys. t e.,.g 2. Consideration should be given to shot peening inside ard outside l ~ t surfaces of stainless steel. This would prevent the, initiation I .. cracking. While there are aheys questions about coverage of shot

.g%

peening the probability of a:C is greatly lowered. - w, e.. ~

3. ' consideration shoulv. he given to an exterior coating which would inhibit SCC fran tha outside in.

4. The criteria for leaks of valves, fittirgs, etc. in operating f g< plants should be reviewed ard tightened. In my opinion there (' *.t - should be no dripping water of any,kird anywhere near the reactor or its canponents, j n., <,t } I a 'I, 1-I .g i t ,h .l. .c. - r 7, , my-)we s m, ' " ,

  • 4 0. [ k.

,4 'I

g~.e

5. b MC +'^jld conduct a p enram to dete[ 'n the effe:t of y

l' crack extent (depth + circuMercatial distlhtion) on tic @y(. f

node of mechanical failure under appropriate loading schates.

~ This is addressed to the question: "Ibw ad uMer what , Mjd : g corditions would the soc crack propagate under machanical loads- .,s g' expected during service." s t ,y y, , mg g, c (:,1 6, There is a reasonable incentive to determine the extent of the -Q transgramlar. SCC on the interml' surface observed by BNRL in y p exanining the interice surface of the second core spray nozzle. g n$[^ wh. Cmments an! Justification in Support of Primary Reconnendation - 7; 9 f- ' ;. y g Eh ~.. s 1. The first question in W mind is whether the AEC will consider 5 f p-? that a conplete break of any safe end is sufficiently serious %i .4[- - y3 l 'to pose a threat to safety. If there is no threat, then there is no point in promulgating any required repair ' action. ^ ? ,?-4. 2.- I believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the 'intergranular cracking of the type observed at NMP ard IACBWR, can lead to a ccnpleto severance or substantial yaw ing of the n Q"%p pipe. Such an assertion is basci on the fact that in both p' cases the cracks were penetrated 50-100%.of the wall over 1/3-N of the circumference. That such a defect can occur before ij Mi leaks are found was a great surprise and also a cause for F Th substantial concern. q 3 i .s 6$. 3. The critical questions here relative to the causative parameters .{ . g[.g*. ]. are the levels of oxygen and stress which are critical. For example there is the reasonable possibility that the cracking c 3a may have cccurred in the gas phase where radiolytically produced J p ', oxygen lad accumulated and which would be saturated with water. However, for various reasons I believe this to be an unreasonable

9.,%

Yh10.O assumption. For example, the deposition of copper in the j IACBWR case suggests that water was in the crevice for a protracted ~

  • period of time.

I suggest that it is, practically speakirg, . unreasonable,to ascociate these failures exclusively with these gasified regions. 1 -s%,9 With respect to the variable of stress; I believe, along with @{Tf'dd With others, that a higher stress may be required to propagate the intergramlar cracks than in the case of transyranular cracks. ? N ~. However, I believe it is_ unreasonable to cut this effect too fine i with respect to deciding which safe end should be repairal. Despite "3j the fact that stress analyses are being con 3ucted on as-built pipes there is no clear certainty that these analyses are Mt sufficiently accurate with respect to what really exists. ?ik Q n.c I gy l b j w s @M ^= .:- r.: 7. y d

. 5-ie hj,. Further, there is no b sis for confiderce which suggests that I 'g@ these stresses will stay the same during operation. They may (g either increase or decrease. EYihi c 1 4 A possibly causative factor may be considered the fluoride ion. ,g Despite the paper by Ward, Mathis and myself shTing the virulence jE j of this contaminant in causing a:C of sensitized materialf there is no basis for suggesting that it was uniquely causative in %@g 7 .the wide range of cases observoS. It must be concluded for the g present that fluoride (as well as chloride) is undesirabl'e but l- ~ that it is not uniquely causative for cracking of the heavily ' dg , s #y sensitized material. M..,

y(

g f

1 i

5. There is the additional issue concerning whethde the smaller- ..f cracks will propagate later. This matter is conjectural. l l' However, frcm the poi.nt of view of public safety it is reasonable A to assume that existing cracks will propagate, hit at a slower $p rate. This is the approach often used in the chemical irdustry 1 82 when scheduling the reordering of replacement m terials. Naturally, ; 2% - it is tappting to conclude otherwise depending on ones cconcmic i prejudices or on one's aversion for politicalinfighting'. I W($;Sg$.D l There were two instances at NMP where specimens were'Itaken ~ to assess the effects of stress: The flared region of the first ^ 4,,,s ' safe end ard the secod safe end. In both cases cracks were ohc m cd. Thene were not co dccp bat wire clearly of tle propagating -y g' type as opposed to the " disk geometry" associated with the external " strawberry" cxamined. Thus there was ro evidence for these additional cracks at the other two locations to be " running out (Q.w,gE of gas." The possibility that the cracks in the flared region ydi'A of the first safe eni were related positively to oxygen concentration s 4* must be rejected-in view of the narrowness of the crevice, i.e.. i ? the high surface to volume ratio for the solution would permit Wj I . the oxygen to deplete rapidly. Di

] F crack in the second R

The observatiw of the longitudinal core spray rozzle frcm the GE irr/estigation suggest that the [~f residual stresses may be unpccdictable and significant. 5' f QM 6. The strong incentive for repair at the present time is related also to the fact that repairs later, will be increasingly difficult g. ~ E6 Mf ~ owing to the accumulation of radioactivity. A failure several years herce will be increasingly difficult to repair ard will g1 { result in greater risks to personnel than performing the repair immediately. Khile this point is obvious, it should be considerci

@fjA relative to the very high probability that. failures will cccur
i. O unicss repairs are made.

x:he W Dh l i l )Y ~ a-, x= et,f,+

]&~

  • p,.

' m',/,e ; ;. 7.z :I do'_not believa that a program of intcrium inspection 3 ] 3 i isLaufficient'to prevent the occurrence of a serious crack.c The initial cracks observed at WP occurrai within three nonths. -It is reasomble that a cracking system which L' starts' slowly ani rennin undetcetsi'early could, within, a short time, begin propagating at a very rapid rate. j ~ .w i ~. ~ mg E;. ^ b 8 There'is no basis for the fact that the reacta systera nust LK* 3 - ' he dynamic (i.e. heating, cooling, or otherwise contorting)

for cracks to propagate.. The components can be essentially j

y. . still, and the.residtial stresses wou141 be sufficient forf h f f - cracks to initiate and propagate. y s;y. I J A % y y q g y p.g 7-j n - 9. ' The signifha of the transgranalar. cracks startirrf frat the 7 i jp

V inside of the-safe erx1 of the second core spray nozzle at W P is not' clear. They were clearly caused by simultaneous

" - r presence of chloride-ions and oxygen at the 1-10 ppn _ level. )- However, it is not clear at what time chloride was present. - n, The natural question here is why was more extensive transgrarulary not observed in other parts of the systen, i.e. 'in the other A core spray nozzle. This problan could be reasonably associated L with only this second core spray line. However, this issue is not clear. There is an incentive for pursuing this matter, 4 further. _ 10. Sann of the protmtion agnire.t the prc= cation of trar,:ranuhr cracks fran the oatside despite the reasonability of occasional l-g> contamination probably results from the fact that the metal surfaces are dry and when cool and wet are not sufficiently t' when lot 1 warm for cracks to prvpagate. 5 t x ~ gd ( ' Concluding Remarks _ y,., Ei The stress corrosion problen is characterized by itsiircredibility. l ' After all, the material is " stainless" and does not %.igEpcot angy l occur once but,after. all,an.irdividual fallurep does not re

~

, j g&, g epidemic.* This subconscious belief has anesthetized both technical perspective of experts and the practical judgment of engineering managenent. I believe ? @$ it is time for the AEC to publish a decisive instruction that all sensitized f stainless steel nust be eliminated. Unless such action ~is taken sunmarily, the reactor irdustry jeopardizes itself in terms of a major failure. Thgt' such a failure would lie grevious not only to'the AEC but also tw country s ^ ^ already deficient electrical power goes without saying. T.i While the above paragraph as well as the entire letter is net constructed py in quantitative tcrns and is rhetorical in plac/it portrays the 14 seriousness with which the problen must be considered acted upon. ly*& It is never possible to inve anywhere near sufficiently quantitative information to l 1 ..WW}, make such engineering decisions.

gfg

.I urge you to implanent t ese rcccnm tions without delay. h S

erely, This is in jest tut represents, unfortumt R.

chle prevailing opinion. c g333 ,~ Consultant m e ___}}