IR 05000280/1993008
| ML18153D320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1993 |
| From: | Crlenjak R, King L, Curtis Rapp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153D319 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-93-08, 50-280-93-8, 50-281-93-08, 50-281-93-8, NUDOCS 9304300194 | |
| Download: ML18153D320 (5) | |
Text
Report Nos. :
Licensee:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 50-280/93-08 and 50-281/93-08 Virginia Electric and Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 20360 Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281 License Nos.: DRP-32 and DRP-37 Facility Name:
Surry Inspection Conducted:
March 22 - 26, 1993 Inspectors: L;f1{2 ~=-
C. Rapp, Reat or Inspector f.22-,/9',5 Da eSfgned
~~2-/ys Date Signed L. King, Reacto~pector Accompanying Pe~~n~ Marvin Sykes, General Engineer-Intern i(<__,__i,(_~ ~*
d!n/q?
4f. Cr enjak,:;e~
~
Approved by:
Operational Program Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This was a special announced inspection in the area of Low Head Safety Injection
- system flow testin The inspectors reviewed design specifications and performance test results for the Low Head Safety Injection cavitating venturis and the procedure for the Unit 2 flow tes The inspectors witnessed the per~ormance of the Unit 2 flow test and independently analyzed the data obtaine Results:
The inspectors determined the procedure was adequat However, based on the inspectors' review of the results of the flow test, a shortfall of 400 gpm was determine In addition, the inspectors review of the cavi tat i ng venturis performance test results found the cavitating venturis were unable to meet the design specification No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000280 Q
_
- REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted
- R. Bilyeu, Licensing Engineer
- R. Blount, Superintendent - Engineering
- D. Grady, Inservice Inspection
- M. Kansler, Station Manager - Surry Power Station
- J. Price, Assistant Station Manager - Surry Power Station
- R. Saunders, Assistant Vice President - Nuclear Operations (via telephone)
- V. Shifflett, Associate Engineer - Licensing P. Skopic, Senior Engineer
- E. Smith, Jr., Manager - Quality Assurance Other licensee employees contacted included instructors, engineers, mechanics, technicians, operators, and office personne NRC Representatives
- J. York, Acting Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit Interview
. Appendix A contains a listing of abbreviations used in this repor.
Background In March 1992, a flow test was conducted on the Unit 1 LHSI system based on NRC findings documented in IR 50-280,281/92-0 The results of this flow test indicated the Unit 1 LHSI pumps were unable to produce the required flo Because of the results of the Unit 1 LHSI flow test, the licensee planned a flow test to verify the Unit 2 LHSI pumps could produce the flow assumed in the LOCA analysis. The Unit 2 flow test, performed on March 24, 1993, was witnessed by NRC inspector The results of the NRC review are documented in paragraph Following the Unit 1 flow test, the licensee performed a LOCA reanalysis based on the results. This reanalysis resulted in an acceptance criteria of 3170 gpm at 100% RWST level. A predicted Unit 2 LHSI shortfall of 250 gpm was used as a bounding condition for the LOCA reanalysis. The effect of this reanalysis on PCT was documented in a 10 CFR 50.46 annual report dated August 31, 199 The licensee stated in the 10 CFR 50.46 annual report the LOCA reanalysis would be bounding for both unit. * Unit 2 LHSI Pump 'A' and Pump 'B' Flow Test Review of 2-0PT-SI-002, Refueling Test of the Low Head Safety Injection Check Valves to the Cold Legs Revision O (Unit 2)
Procedure 2-0PT-Sl-002, Refueling Test of the Low Head Safety Injection Check Valves to the Cold Legs Revision 0, was used for performance of the LHSI fl ow test discussed in paragraph 3. b.
Because of concerns with the procedure used for the Un it 1 fl ow test, the inspectors reviewed 2-0PT-Sl-002 to ensure RWST level and
- instrumentation error was included. The inspectors noted 2-0PT-SI-002 did not require RWST level to be obtained when LHSI flow data was taken although the acceptance criteria for LHSI flow was based on RWST level. After discussions with the licensee, the inspectors concluded that obtaining RWST level at the same time flow data was taken was not required because RWST level was not significantly affected by the flow test. Also, the inspectors could not determine if instrumentation error for LHSI discharge flow, LHSI recirculation flow, and RWST level was included. The inspectors were provided and reviewed a licensee memorandum, Flow Rate Requirements for the LHSI Pumps - Surry Power Station Special Flow Test Using 1-PT-18.30 Revision 1, dated March 13, 199 This memorandum described the computer analysis used to develop an uncorrected RWST level - LHSI flow curv The uncorrected flow curve was then used to develop a flow curve for 2-0PT-SI-002 that was corrected for instrumentation error. Based on the additional information provided, the inspectors concluded 2-0PT-SI-002 was adequat Performance of Unit 2 LHSI Pump 'A' and Pump 'B' Fl ow Test Because of concerns identified in IR 50-280,281/92-06, the licensee conducted a Unit 2 LHSI system flow test on March 24, 1993. This test was conducted to determine if the LHSI system could deliver the flow assumed in the LOCA analysis. The inspectors witnessed the performance of this test and reviewed the data analysi LHSI flow rate, pump suction pressure, pump discharge pressure, and RWST level data were collected from local and control room instrumentation. The inspectors reviewed the initial data and concluded LHSI flow rate was about 200 gpm less than the flow rate assumed in the accident analysi The inspectors discussed the effect of the Unit 2 LHSI 200 gpm shortfall on PCT with the license The licensee stated the 250 gpm shortfall assumed in August 31, 1992 10 CFR 50.46 report was boundin However, the inspectors pointed out the LHSI flow acceptance curve was corrected by an add it i ona 1 200 gpm to account for cavitat i ng venturi actua 1 performanc This resulted in a tot a 1 short fa 11 of 400 gpm when cavitating venturis performance was include The licensee agreed the 400 gpm shortfall would result in a PCT increase of more than 50° Because of these results, the licensee is performing a reanalysis of the 400 gpm shortfall and will submit a 10 CFR 50.46 report within the 30 day requirement. Unit 2 is currently shutdown and scheduled for restart after the report due dat NRR will review the 10 CFR 50.46 report for acceptabilit Unit 2 LHSI Pump Performance Test In IR 50-280,281/92-06, the inspectors identified that Unit 2 LHSI shortfall could be greater than the Unit 1 shortfall. To determine if the Unit 2 LHSI pumps were degraded, the inspectors reviewed the TS quarterly surveil 1 ance test No i ndi cation of pump degradation was indicated by the TS quarterly surveillance tests. As part of a routine surveillance, the licensee was to obtain data to determine the LHSI pump
- flow characteristic Until the inspectors complete a review of the data from the LHSI pump performance test to determine if the Unit 2 LHSI pumps are degraded, this item is unresolved, URI 93-08-01, Review of LHSI Pump Performance Dat Review of LHSI Cavitating Venturis Design Specification and Associated Calculations The inspectors reviewed the necessary calculations to determine where the values used in the LOCA analysis, which are an input into the 10 CFR 50.46 report, originated. The inspectors reviewed SWEC Calculation No. 34, Number 518.53.01, LHSI Cavitating Venturis for Cold Leg dated 11-11-77 and SWEC Calculation No. 3, J.O. Number 12846.11, Safety Injection System Performance dated 8-18-77 which were used to determine the design data for the LHSI cavitating venturi The inspectors concluded the minimum flow requirements were 3249 gpm for one LHSI pump operating assuming 0% RWST level and 93 psia at the venturi inlet. A performance test was conducted by the Utah Water Research Laboratory and the results documented in NUS-9106, 6-inch Cavitating Venturi Performance Test, dated December 197 The inspectors reviewed the data obtained from this performance test and found the results indicated approximately 1019 gpm per venturi at 93 psia which was less than the SWEC design specification required flow of 1083 gpm per venturi at 93 psi Calculation PE-024-0, Job No. 12846.19, Modified Total Safety Injection Flowrate vs. RCS Pressure - All Lines Injecting dated 1-28-80, revised the design calculations to reflect the venturi performance test dat A review of the acceptance curve for the LHSI pump flow test indicated the curve was based on the results of calculation PE-024-0 not the SWEC initial design requirement This resulted in significantly greater shortfall than indicated by the flow test dat As described in paragraph 3.b., the licensee reanalyzed the LOCA analysis and will submit a 10 CFR 50.46 repor.
Exit Meeting The inspection scope and finding were summarized on January 29, 1993 with those persons identified in Paragraph 1. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the license No proprietary material was reviewed by the inspector ITEM
- . URI 93-08-01 STATUS OPEN DESCRIPTION Review of LHSI Pump Performance Data
Inspection Report
Job Order
Low Head Safety Injection
Loss of Coolant Accident
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Peak Clad Temperature
Refueling Water Storage Tank
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation
Technical Specifications
Unresolved Item