ML051390050

Slides - Summary of Meeting on 3/30/05 Control Room Habitability Issues for Units 1 and 3

ML051390050
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	06/15/2005
From:	Arizona Public Service Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Duvigneaud D, NRR/DLPM/LPD4 301-415-4010
Shared Package
ML051580506	List: ML051390050 ML051580371
References
Download: ML051390050 (13)

Text

---

CONTROL R OOM HABITABILITY Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Agenda

• Introduction (Carl Churchman (APS) / Mel Fields (USNRC))

• Description of PVNGS' GL 2003-01 Response (Robert Busto (APSJJ

• PVNGS' CRE/CREFs Design (Robert Busto (APS))

• U2 Tracer Gas Testing / Enhanced DP Test (Robert Busto (APS))

• CRH Program Maintenance (Robert Busto (APS))

• Conclusions (Robert Busto (APS))

• Closing (Carl Churchman (APS) /Mel Fields (USNRC))

PVNGS Position on GL 2003-01

• First site to meet their CR Design Basis Criteria for Unfiltered Air Inleakage using ASTM E741 criteria

• Strong correlation between the U2 Tracer Gas Test and Enhanced DP Test

• Identical / Simple One Floor CRE

• Self Assessment PVNGS conducted with STARS

• Plans to Eliminate Vulnerability for Inleakage

• Strong Maintenance Practices Robust CR Design Precludes Potential for Unfiltered Inleakage

CRE/CREFS Design I/ ;('

COLOR AREA Legend:

CR Positive pressure ar flow - t CR Negalve presste air flow - t Control Bldg Suppl air low--

I CONTROL BLDG NORMAL AIC Cot

CRE/CREES Design

PVNGS Design vs. OtherDesigns OBA AIC m

OSA co:

U2 TracerGas Testing/EnhancedDP Test m Completed in April 2001 m CRE DP Profile concurrent with Tracer Gas Testing

• Independent CRE DP Profile (Aug/Sept 2003) m Results support PVNGS' position in GL 2003-01 (Illustrative Comparisons)

\\ I/.

Test Observations

• DPreadings correlate well to Tracer Gas Test Results Both Trains in all three (3) PVNGS Units Homogeneous distribution throughout CRE m Slight Differences Number of Fans in operation Expected variability M Results of all tests significantly above 0.125" WG acceptance criteria which yielded a Large Margin of Safety

• Favorable Results of Enhanced DP Testing demonstrates the adequacy of the CRE

• DP Test supports PVNGS' position in GL 2003-01

.Ii 1 4

140'Elevation CRE Layout I

'he MOVr Ou...

'e z hOutide1 AirChase DieseL

---I Dntrol Building o

Mcmsul vmm NUCON 12AZ187,140' Elevation Ca Cot-

I Tar Gas Test DP vs U2 DP Profile 0

U)

(A 0

mU 1.3 1.2 1.1 1

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

A H

,T,\\W

\\

A-'

m m

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 T

14 Lations in CARE Tracer U2A -U2B coS

Comparison Of DP Profiles vs. Tracer DP U) 0 1.3 1.2 1.1 1

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

rn-rn-----

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 Locations in CRE r

Tracer

-UIA -U1B

- U2A U2B U3A U3B

Maintenance Practices for CRH X Surveillance to Inspect Penetration Seals (18 months)

• Doors/Door Seals Inspected Monthly

• Bubbletight Damper PMs

• Quarterly Strokes

• Annual Inspections

• Blade Seals replaced every 5 Operating Cycles

• Full Time/Dedicated HVAC Team (Maintenance/Testing)

Conclusions

• Tracer Gas and Enhanced DP Testing Validated Our Design

• Strong Correlation (DP Profile vs. Tracer Gas Test Data)

Identical / Simple One Floor CRE

• PVNGS/STARS Self Assessment

• Elimination of Vulnerability M Maintenance Practices

• Surveillance Testing / Performance Monitoring v Robust CR Design Precludes Unfiltered Inleakage