ML20141K372
Text
. -_- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _
t Lt s
(
(
l- UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION t
I
(- m(b9{
sx
_ s _ ,..n.o. ....,
-f w .. A E.
u SEP 7 1957 E ~
Docket No. 50-219 Ll$5 f!h A S,,Eb f
b E;N.rc*I E E
Mr. Nunzio Palladino 4 e Chairman, Advisory Committee \ ?
py 3 i
on Reactor Safeguards U. S. Atomic Energy Commissio.
k"
\
3 VI
' Washington, D. C.
l'
Dear Mr. Palladino:
l Transmitted for the information of the Committee are three copies of the following:
JERSEY CENTRAL PO'RR & LIGHT COMPANY (Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1)
Letter dated July 26, 1967, and license application Amendment No. 6 containing financial data in support of application for provisional operating license.
'I Sincerely yours.
aid 4 < ,
Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Encl osures .
As stated above f )) . .
- ? [ [ ', hl . ,
g n 6) o)u.mB W A& p3h i c; _ J ' 'h I hp RM(
ggf ws /'
,A s J _ /'Afdf w l J
ecpien ,, _ L~~+Ld 9203190073 910807 j i PDR FOIA DEKOK91-282 PDR
' I l i~14'
'^ --
0W i
, WOC had 10/19/67
.n
,trole_et1 STster Crsak_ Unit No. I hp ,
$catus t. Operating 1.icese. (It is surrectly matteipated that the project will be seboduled for partial review at the November ACRS meeting.)
Eackaround:
The Oystar Creek Subcommaittee mat with representativos of the applicant on June 22, 1967 f.a Washington, D.C. and on July 28,1%7 La Toms River, New ~
Jersey. At the first wanting, it was decided that sufficient information had I
not been developed to sebedule the applicant to appear before the full Com-mittee. N 36 committee candluded that DEL abould meet with the Commaittee to discuss the Oyster Creek emergency i. ore cooling system before further
- review =* this amatter by the Subcommaittee. A copy of the July 1M7 Acts minutts nich pertata to these discussions is attached.
j At the October 1967 ACR3 meeting, tha Regulatory Staff discussed a proposal that the Oystar Croak license be grented in two stag 6s, thereby pennitting feol loading and low power operation at an earlier date. N Connaittee decided it would snaistain the normal review procedure and that a single letter wccid be writtka when the review is completed. Recently, JerLey Central forwarded a WX to Mr price urging awpedited review of the project. DRL now pkms to make every effort to have the project ready for final review at the December 1967 ACES unasting, tresentsticas ~~
l h applicant has been asked to be prepared to give short presenter'.ons _
on:
i A. Emergency Cere Cooling Syetaca B. RedLatica Dose Calcu1Mions C. Instrusnantation Systers Questions
- 1. During the Subcomunittee site visit, there appeared to be a laxity regarding control of the welding rods. N Regulatory Staff mist.t be asked whether they believe that edequate quality coutrol, particularly in regard to this saatter, is being naintain44.
- 2. h recent Jersey Central WI to Mr. price indicates a eritical need for the Oyster Creek plant to be on the line during the posk lead 44-need during the summer of 1968, h applicant wight be asked how compelling it will be for the reactor to remain in operation if the reactor needt to be shut down for safety reasons (ca. . enthar_mu:mle:setaLpvar m h *nW from eitjacent grids)4 OmCE > . . . . . .. ..l- . . . . -< -- - - - . - ~~ --"-
hee suseNAMt > .. . - - - . ~ . . . - - . - . - - -
om > = = = = = . = = = = . = = = ===-
Form ADC.818 (ket. 9 63) g m,,,ga g im g,4,,,
._ .- - = ~ - _ .- -
(
( , I
( '
IV. OYSTER CREEK UNIT No. 1 A. Executive Session Dr. McKee noted that the Oyster Creek plant would require backfitting of the ECCS to bring it up to the standards of plants being approved at this time. He thought that whatever is decided on this plant will affect others in a similar situation. The Subcomittee had concluded that they had not gotten sufficient information to justify a meeting with Jersey Ccntral, but also felt that more guidance f rom the Committee was necessary.
The Staff evaluation dated June 16, 1967 had two types of recccrmndations; l additional, necessary changes and areas in which further study is in-
- dicated. Dr. McKee noted that Jersey Central had already made several I voluntary additions to the core cooling systems.
I There seems to be adequate coverage for large breaks by way of the fully redundant core spray systems. If of f-site power is available small breaks can also be accomodated without core damage. If off-site power is lost, however, the semiautomatic depressurization (SAD) system must be used to allow use of the core sprays.
i in terms of the DRL requirements:
The applicant has already agreed to redundant diesels and station batteries.
The applicant has agreed to multiple core spray system initiation.
The applicant has agreed to program all of the relief valves (4) to be opened by the SAD system.
t DRL still feels it is necessary to add a high pressure ,
j injection system; the applicant has not agreed.
Dr. McKee also noted that some apprehension has been expressed by the
- i Staff about the consequences of a break in the torus header.
l
! Breaks up to four inches in diameter are both more serious, in terms of core temperature, and more probable than a large, double-ended break and result in about 457, fuel pin perforations.
In terms of calculated consequences of releases, the applicant and GE differ by a wide margin from the Staff.
( (. ,
\. s 7 1 u .
The Subcot:mittee has posed the following questions for consideration by the Comittee: '
Can the ACRS support DRL in the demand for a HPCIST Would it be more advisable to ask for emergency power for the feedwater pumps?
Does the SAD system 'present sufficient redundancy to the core cooling systems in the event of a small break with s !
no off-site power 7 i
i Should the Subcomittee insiat on agreement between the Regulatory Staff and the applicant before another i meeting is held?
l Dr. Hanauer thought that one problem was that GE was not willing to con-cede anything, having already taken a substantial loss on the plant.
He also observed that the Subcomittee could not determine the reason for the vast difference between DRL and GE in dose calculations and thought that the Staff should explain.
Dr. Monson agreed, but felt that resolution of this difference might not be critical to approval of Oyster Creek since both sets of results are acceptable in comparison with Part 100.
Dr. Hanauer did not agree. He felt that one might require redundant systems to prevent exposures equivalent to Part 100 limits but not to prevent doses on the order of imR.
l Dr. Hanauer also felt that the Regulatory Staff was in effect using 3 sets of criteria. The first applies to such plants as Browns Ferry; the second is used for backfitting facilities and seems more stringent than the criteria against which new plants are judged.- The third set of criteria seems to have been written specifically for Oyster Creek and is more stringent yet since the Staf f is. now concerned about the f ailure of " passive components". Dr. Hanauer suggested asking the Staff exactly to what standard Oyster Creek is to be brought.
Dr. Okrent noted that the Oyster Creek site is one of the poorer of those approved. He also pointed out that, at the tinn of the construction permit review, the then-Comittee did not accept GE's assumptions in the dose calculations and the present Comittee should not be too hasty to l reverse this.
1*'
(
\
B. Reculatoty Staff Mr. Boyd reported that the doses presented in the Staff evaluation of June 30, 1967 had been recalculated. The results are as follows:
2 Hr. Done. Rem 30 Day Dose. Rem Whole Body Thyroid Whole Body Thyroid Small Breaks 3 75 3 35 Large Breaks 2 60 2 30 4
DBA 6 100 0 80 where the DBA assumes a nonfunctional core cooling system and TID releases, i
Mr. Mangelsdorf asked what power supply was available to operate the core i sprays.
k Mr. Tedesco noted that the applicant had proposed that only one core spray be operable with on-site power, but has since informally agreed to add a second diesel.
Dr. Hanauer asked how the Oyster Creek minimum performance objectives compared with presently applicable construction permit requirements.
Mr. Levine felt that more stringent requirements for Dyster Creek were in order because of the " bottom break" problem. Dr. Morris thought the requirements things. were really equivalent but that implementation complicated Dr. Hanauer pointed out that Browns Ferry could not meet the requirements on failure of such passive subsystems as the torus header and that this 1
did not seem to be required of most current plants.
l Dr. Okrent asked if failure of passive components would be assumed in 6
all f:7ure reviews.
Mr. Levine replied that it would be applied to plants with bottom break I possibilities, since only core spray would be available for core cooling.
The DRL Core Ferformance Cooling System wasEvaluation of the Oyster Creek Reactor Plant Emergency distributed.
l position on these. It contained recommendations by DRL J
Dr. O' Kelly asked in the Staf f evaluation, what the dif ference was between recommendations in Category A and those in Cate8ory B.
Mr. Levine replied that Category A listed major changes required while Category B included changes which could be required, but on which the Staff is still undecided.
Concerning the Staff!s conclusion that a high pressure injection system is necessary, Dr. Okrent asked if the Staf f position that significant clad perforation should be prevented could be tied to a temperature limit.
Mr. Tedesco replied that 15000F was considered the threshold for perforations.
Dr. Hanauer noted that for big breaks the Staf f seems willing to accept many perforations as a consequence. For small breaks which almost fall in the class of anticipated transients, the Staff seemingly requires that no fuel perforations result. He asked where intermediate breaks fall.
Mr. Levine thought that this had not yet been decided. He agreed, however, that DRL has concluded that no cladding perforations should result from small pipe breaks. GE, on the other hand, says that since clad melting is prevented, fuel failures are an acceptable result of small pipe breaks.
Mr. Palladino asked if the more stringent requirements were due to the higher probability of small pipe failures. Mr. Levine replied that they were. This is being considered as a general requirement, j Mr. Tedesco discussed the basis for requiring a header modification. The ring header is located below and parallels the torus and contains the connections to the ECCS pumps. Mr. Levine noted that a break in one of these would not only cut off water to the ECCS pumps, but would constitute a breach in containment as well. This is of concern mainly for the long-term operation following an accident. If it is assumed that ECCS cooling is necessary and that the header is lost during this time, core cooling would be lost, the ECCS pumps would be flooded and the containment would be breached.
i On DRL requirement B(2), ECCS Initiation Signal Diversification, br.
Hanauer asked if the DRL position that resolution was necessary before operation at power meant prior to issuance of an operating 11cens6.
Mr. Levine replied that resolution will be required before issuance of a license and u.at the neccesary work completed before power operation.
l
- ~
( (
g C. Caucus 1 1
Mr. 'Palladino remarked that as a result of the Staff's performance l evaluation and the discussion, the situation seemed clearer. ,
Dr. Hanauer suggested that the apparently new criteria be considered care- )
fully. He pointed out that the requirement of an alternate cooling system at this point was a major one.
Mr. Fraley reported that minutes of the Staff's meeting with GE on the discrepancy in dose calculations would be distributed to the Committee.
i f Dr. Hanauer thought that the Subcommittee needed to know the extent to i which the Committee wanted these questions probed. The Subcommittee
$ might say that no meetings will be held until the Staf f and the appli-cant have reached agreement, but the Staff has asked for help in getting its requirements met. Dr. Hanauer thought it was clear that the staff's l' requirements for Oyster Creek were more stringent than they had been for Browns Ferry, however, and the Subcommittee was not willing to press for these without full Committee guidance.
Mr. Palladino and Dr. Monson were not sure that new criteria were involved. Somo requirements might be different because the system was lacking ether areas. Dr. Hanauer did not agree and noted that a new criterion had been established in the tequirement of fewer perfora-tions resulting from small-area breaks. Mr. Mangelsdorf agreed.
Dr. Okrent felt that the Staff should have settled on a position before asking the Committee to consider the case. The Subcommittee should assure that complete information is available, as always.
Mr. Palladino suggested that the Subcommittee develop a complete under-
- l' standing of the ECCS capabilities and inform the Committee when it is l
appropriate to continue the review.
i l
5
7 .
I . ON
(
M Webed 50/31/67
- thp '
Profeett get,sr Creek Unit 50 1 .
D,k W t-Jtates t operating License (Partisi noview at November Acts Meettag) (l$
n- '
l Bacharourwil The Oyster Creek Subcouraittee met wit.h representatives of the appliaant on June 22 and October 20, 1967 in Washington, D.C. and en July 24, 1967 La i Toms River, sew Jersey. At the first Subcommittee moottag, it was semeluded
! that sufficient information had not been developed to sabedule the applisant
- to appear before the full Committee. The project was, honorer, disenssed with
. DEL at the July _ Acts meeting, i
, ! At the october 1967 Acts seeting, the tagstatory 8taff diseussed a proposal g that the Oyster Creek license be greeted in two stages, thereby permitting fuel loading and too power operation at an earlier date. The Committee deeld.e4 it semld asintain the normal review procedure and that a afagle -letter would be written when the review is complett4. Recently, Jersey Central forwarded a TWI to Mr.
price urging expedited review of the project. DEL mew plena to make ersey effort
_to have the project ready for final review at the December 1967 Acts meettag.
Future Subecomittee Neetings
' A Subceansittes meeting will be held in unshington, D.C. en November 17, 1967 to discuss the Oyster Creek instrumentation system. At the October 1967 Acts meeting, the Committee requested of DEL that the technisal- apacificattens
. be made available prior to the final Subcommittee meeting for the next few operating license reviews. It was agreed that, in the future, technical specifica-
- tions would be reviewed by individual reactor subcommittees. It is espected that !
, a Subcommittee meeting will be held during the latter part of sovember to teriew j the oyster Creek technical specifications and other remataing areas sencaratas j_ the reactor.
g Presentationt l Jersey Central has been asked to be prepared to give a presentation at the ;
i full Committee meeting as follees
-[
- . 1. A summary regarding the core cooling system - 15 minutes, o.
- 2. A summary concerning the radiation dose situation - 10 minutes.
i
- 3. Quality control - 15 minutes.
In regard to 1. above, the applicant's representative, Mr. Roddis, stated at the Deteber 20, 1967 subcommaittee aseeting that he believaa.,the meersemey eere j f coollas system, with addition of the control rod drive pumps, is adequcte. .
oma, j . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
J SURNAME > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . _,
DATE > . . . . . . . . _ . _ , , _ , , , , , , . . .
N #"" M
- u a sowmmentemmwsavra ame-o au em
(
(
e' se _ tediented, bewever, that additiemal eeelias capability would ka preeteed if required by BEL and the Acts. BEL has new esecluded (espplement to DES, tapert ,
So, t) thet the esetrof rad drtre ymp aspab111ty deee met provide estfig$est-proteettaa to prevent auto-relief metuation for anell breaks. They beltedt ehet t the break eine sovarage for the high pressure soolant tajasties system absued include break sises from 0 to 0.2 f t 2, ,
t In regard to ' item 2. above, a esaparison of the Sg and ML asse salestations and assumptions was presented .st the and of DEL tapert 50 1. SE and SEL under-stand each other's positions but are mot near resolutten of the differesses be-tween them.
i During the Subcausittee visit to the site, it uma observed by the Deb-committee that the construction operation was stoppy. In partientar, there was poor control of welding rode. GE is to disease their gwslity sentrol pro-sedures.
l ouestions:
, 1. The Regulatory staf f might be arked regarding how they view the goality control which has taken place during fabriestion and constreeties at the site, whether they are concerned regarding this r.strer, and whether any action has been taken by the Regulatory Staff during the fabrication and construction operation to igrove quality control.
- 2. DEL might be asked to discuss a requirement for additional sore cooling espability relative to the provisions of the General Design Criteria.
l l
l i
I ***
i t
6 i
4
. . ' -y, 1
omct > ...-.. . . . . . . . . . . -... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . - . . .
SURNAME > . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATI > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . - . . - . . . - -
Form AFC-814 (Rev. 9-431 e mamese leneu
,, 1 OWL i
W3shed .
11/17/67 fm ,, . :-
h .~g) .* . '
Prolestt Orster Creek Osit 50. 1 .k.
G,A Itates t operating License (Ter.tatively eehedvied for the Deseder ACES Meettag)
}eekaresed ,
% Oyster Creek sobeammittee met with rettementatives of the lo spplicant au June 12 sud estaber 10, IM7 in trahinstas, D.C. and en July 28, 1967 in Tous Rivat', New Jersey. De project uns seasidered at the saveder Acss aseeting. A summary of the results of this meettas is as fellows: ,
Se Committee emettanad its review of the Oystec Greek plant. As l a result of dioeussions witti DgL and the applicant, the Cesmmittee infereed s Jersey Central power med Light Company that-it ecold have great diffisulty in approving proloused operaties of the Oyster Creek plant without medi-tional protection for N esatt primary piping break restem. He committae
' moderstands from the October 27,1M71etter that the applisant ta prepared to provide addittomat high pressure asolant injeettee espebility tendar less of off-site power sooditions. De Cesemittee taformed the app 11 asst that it aants to see a preliminary design for additional high pressure sere ecoling before it completes its review, he applicant uns also requested te work with pgL tet (a) assure that adeqvata
- standing estats of the natura l ef the control rod peeetration weld stackins-(b) reach agreement that the problem has been suplaced adequately as to the extent of ersekias (c) assure that the proposed solution is adequata (d) review quality control deviations en other essential portiens of the plant, such as reported arv strikaa en Primary system pipes med eenpenoots, quality _of pipe, ou. ,
he Committee indicated that it wiebes to see the reesita of these investigations before it casoletas its review. His project La tentatively scheduled for review at the Deced er Acss meettas. .-
DEL atill plans to semplete its reyLaw ef the preJoet and proriN.c
- their report la time for the project to be seasidered at the Desseer ACES ,
insettas. A subcommittee meeting is scheduled- for moveder 27. IM7 te dia-euse the renaisias outstanding items regarding the facility.
omcr > . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . - . . . . . . . . _ . . -.-
Sunuswr > _ . . . . . . . . . ... .. . e, . e -.... . . . _ . , . . . . . . . . .
DAtr > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. . . .. . . . . . ~ . . . . . . - - - . . . - - n.-
Mm ABC.818 h W t commaarm pe,mme orm : ten.-o-2ta 4:e
. _