Operational Reactor Safety

22.091 /22.903

Professor Andrew C. Kadak Professor of the Practice

Lecture 21

Davis Besse - N ear Miss 2002

Topics to Be Covered

• History of Davis Besse

• Review of Alloy 600 cracking

• Review of Davis Besse Vessel Head Leakage

• Contributing Factors

• Failures of Operator, NRC, INPO, Oversight

• Lessons Learned

Davis Besse - 8 73 Mwe Babcock and Wilcox Design

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008 Page 3

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

History of Davis Besse

• 1995 World Record of a 99.2% capacity factor

• 2001 - 99.7% capacity factor

• 2001 – 500 day run completed in October 2001

• 5.5 million hours worked without lost time accident in 2001

• Considered a good performing plant by NRC and INPO

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008 Page 4

Primary Water Stress Corrosion Crackin g o f Vesse l Hea d Penetratio ns

• First observed in France – B ugey 3 Reactor in 1991

• Associated with PWSCC of Alloy 600 (inconel)

• PWSCC function of temperature, pressure and time

• NRC sent out information notices – r equired inspections

• Industry did assessment of susceptibility of reactors (BW/CE)

– Established a scale based on full power hours of operation

– B ased on head temperature

– I ndustry did not consider this a significant issue since US reactor head were built differently than French reactors.

• Inspections difficult due to access and dose

• Perception was that if cracks occurred they would be axial not circumferential and detectable

• Carbon steel vessel degradat ion was considered but not judged to be significant due to flashing of steam and leaving boron crystals (>500F) – n ot as a liquid – 4 inches/yr if water

• Inspection of Oconee Nuclear Station 1 (Nov. 2000), Arkansas Unit 1 (Feb. 2001), Oconee Unit 3 (Feb. 2001) and Oconee Unit 3 (April 2001) showed both axial and circumferential cracks in Control Rod Drive Mechanisms.

• NRC Issues Bulletin 2001-01 ordering inspections of highly susceptible plants by December 31, 2001.

• NRC prepares a shutdown order for Davis Besse

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering Page 7

Results

• Davis Besse requests an extension to next spring outage.

• NRC grants extension February to 16, 2002.

March 2002

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008 Page 8

Typical PWR Reactor Vessel

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 20

ent of Nuclear Science & Engineering Page 9

08

Departm

STP Penetration # 46

Nnnle 3 with insulatinn reninved and shielding installed 03- ] 8-IJ2

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Vessel Degradation

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Page 14

Boric Acid Deposits

Prof. Andrew C.

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Page 15

Kadak, 2008

Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel

Department of Nuclear Science & En

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008 Page 16

gineering

Control Rod Drive Mechanisms

Department of Nuclear Science & Engi

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008

neering

Page 17

Vessel Head Penetration Nozzle

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008 Page 18

Davis Besse Experience with Primary Coolant Leaks

• All BW plants reported boric acid leakage problems including vessel head penetrations

• RPV head vent to steam generator (1992)

• RCS thermowells

• CRDM flange leaks

• Pressurizer spray valve

• Letdown isolation cooler isolation valve

• Pressurizer safety relief valves.

Davis Besse Indicators

• Containment Air Cooler Clogging with Boron Crystals – C leaning monthly instead of yearly

• Containment radiation monitor filters (1998 -2002)

– Ultimately required replacement every 2-3 days

– F ound brown stains with boron crystals.

• Some bolts on pressurizer spray valves corroded off due to spray valve leakage.

• Leakage increased by a factor of 10 but still within technical specification limits.

Missed Opportunities

Photo Circa 2000

Prof. Andrew C. Kadak, 2008

Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering Page 21

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Breakdowns

• Utility

• Industry – NEI and EPRI

• NRC

• INPO

• Oversight Boards

Lessons Learned

• Could have set nuclear industry back (again) – m ajor non-isolable leak – break – i n reactor pressure vessel

– W e are judged by our poorest performer

• Complacency based on good record

• Poor management oversight and awareness

• You can go to jail (several charged with criminal violations – f alsification of records)

• Conservative decision making is important

• Not allowing unacceptable conditions to exist.

• Strong questioning attitude needed

More lessons

• Focus should be on causes not symptoms

• Engineering organization needs to be engaged in problem resolution not just enabling management decisions.

• Mind set of it can never happen needs to be challenged.

• Oversight organizations need to be aggressive.

– I NPO should have identified the problem

– Outside Nuclear Safety Review Boards should not only listen to management presentations

• NRC resident inspectors did not do their job

• Group think should be avoided

Even more lessons

• Failure to use experience reports and believe them

• Power production is important but if safety compromised the plant and the industry will suffer.

• Safety culture differentiates excellent performers from bad.

Consequences

• Davis Besse Replaced reactor vessel head.

• Repairs cost $ 600 million – l oss of revenue

• Plant shutdown for 2 years

– R estart issue was not of adequacy of repairs

– Restart was predicated on whether or not the safety culture of the plant was acceptable for operation!

• Fortunately this event was considered as an isolated event by the public but a failure of the regulatory and oversight process.

Homework

• Review the FENOC (Davis Besse) request for continued operation sent in late 2001 to justify operation until the spring out.

• Based on the information provided and the experience with Alloy 600, provide a technically based answer to the request – y ou may want to review the NRC letter granting approval to see if you agree – why and why not.

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu

22.091 Nuclear Reactor Safety

Spring 200 8

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms .