ML091130122

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Telcom with Entergy on April 16, 2009, on Chemical Effects Testing for Generic Letter 2004-02
ML091130122
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/28/2009
From: Boska J
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:
Entergy Nuclear Operations
Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901
References
GL-04-002, TAC MC4689, TAC MC4690
Download: ML091130122 (16)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 April 28, 2009 LICENSEE:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY:

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

TELECON WITH ENTERGY ON APRIL 16, 2009, ON CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING FOR GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 (TAC NOS. MC4689 AND MC4690)

On April 16, 2009, a telephone call was held between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee).

The purpose of the call was to discuss the licensee's plans to conduct chemical effects testing to support analyses required by NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, "Potentiallmpact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors."

The analyses are being performed for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). See Enclosure 1 for a list of participants on the call, and Enclosure 2 for the handout provided by Entergy. The NRC staff generally agreed with the test protocol, but stressed two points: (1) that additional details (e.g., post-Ioss-of-coolant-accident pH range) would be needed for the NRC staff to assess the conservative nature of the IP test, and (2) the NRC staff's comments about the vendor's proposed test approach was unique to IP and that other licensee's tests would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Please direct any inquiries to me at (301) 415-2901.

Sincerely,

..,....""1

(

r

J.//) c.:<<:

..~H:-L:.

".Jbhn P. Boska, Senior Project Manager l/Plant Licensing Branch 1-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees
2. Licensee Handout cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

List of Attendees:

NRC J. Boska P. Klein M. Yoder S. Smith J. Lehning B. Bickett A. Ziedonis Entergy R. Walpole R. Waters V. Meyers J. Gehrlein E. Weinkam Alion R. Choromokos J. Furman Enercon K. Milliken K. Walker

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop Testing Indian Point Units 2 and 3 April 16th, 2009

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop Approach UsingtheHighTemperatureVerticalLoop(HTVL),IndianPoint2

&3(IP2&3)sumptemperature(below200°F)andchemistry willbesimulated Headlossismeasuredforthedurationofthetesttomeasure thetemperatureandtimefortheheadlossimpactofchemical precipitates HTVLresultswillbeusedtorefinetimingandtemperatureof chemicalprecipitateheadlossapplicationtolargescaletank testresults

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop Methodology UsesWCAP16530predicteddissolvedAl&Siconcentrations Sodiumtetraborate(NaTB)andboronsumpchemistryofIP2&

IP3 Simulatesworstcasetemperature,chemistryandpHfor precipitationatsumptemperaturesbelow200°F Determineswhenchemicalprecipitatescausesignificant increaseinheadlossinHTVL

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop EquipmentSpecifications Temperature:200° Fto65°F Pressure:atmosphericto5psig Volume:nominal60liters Screenapproachvelocities:

0.001 0.1ft/sec (IP2&3willuse0.013ft/s)

Maximumbeddifferential pressure:5 H2O(operational),

10 H2O(structural)

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop TestStrategy

1. Loopisfilledwithrecirculatingborated,bufferedwaterand heatedto200°F
2. TargetpHstomaximizeprecipitation a)

WCAP16530analysisconsideredpH4.62to7.4-maximumcorrosion willbeused b) 7.1pHusedinHTVL-Chosentomaximizeprecipitation c) pHismaintainedatorbelow7.1throughouttest

3. Thindebrisbedisestablished a)

NUKONfiber- ~1/2inchthickfiberbed b)

Siliconcarbide-5:1particulate/fiberratio

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop TestStrategy

4. Loopispressurizedwithnitrogengasorcompressedairas requiredtoensureadequateNPSHmargin
5. Whenheadlosshasstabilized,chemicalsareinjected
  • Aluminum:2.9ppm(designvalue)
  • Silicon:

94.4ppm(designvalue)

6. Temperatureisreducedinstepscorrespondingwiththepost LOCAsumptemperaturesofinterest
7. Temperatureisheldateachstepforatleast6.5hours
8. Headlossismeasuredandthetimingandtemperatureof precipitateheadlossisdetermined

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop TestProfile Temperatureis adjustedtopoints ofinterest Durationsbound planttimingand addressreaction kinetics 0

50 100 150 200 250 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Temperature(°F)

Time(h)

IP2&3HotLoopTemperatureProfilevs.MaximumSump Temperatures HTVLTemperature Curve ContainmentSump MaximumTemperature Curve 115°F 160°F 105°F 110°F 180°F 170°F 70°F 65°F AdditionalAl injected Actual temperatures and durations may vary pending approval of the Test Plan.

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop IncrementalElementalAddition Corrosion/dissolutionisarelativelyslowprocess IncrementalElementalAdditionaccountsforgradualcorrosionand dissolution ElementsareinjectedintotheHTVLatWCAP16530plantcorrosionand dissolutionrates

- NRCStaffguidancerelativetodoublingaluminumcorrosionrateisconsideredandapplied InjectionquantitiescorrespondWCAP16530analysisatmaximum temperature Injectiontimingcorrespondswithminimumplanttemperatureprofileto maximizeprecipitation TimingprovidesconservativesimulationofWCAP16530 dissolution/corrosionphenomena

HighTemperatureVerticalLoop Conclusions MethodologyforIP2&3isdesignedtomeasurewhenchemicalprecipitates willhaveanimpactonstrainerheadlossbymeasuringthetimingand temperatureoftheonsetofprecipitateheadloss ProvidesIP2&3representativeandconservativeplantsumpchemistryand headlossdatawithouttheneedforextrapolation

- HTVLtestingisusedforprecipitateheadlosstiming/temperatureevaluation

- Largescaletestingisusedforplantstrainerheadlossprediction Dualtestingmethodsareintegratedwithtime/temperaturedependent acceptableheadlossestoresolveGSI191forIP2&3

AcceptanceCriteria

  • NPSH(TEMPERATUREBASED)

- GreaterthanStructuralat~160°F

  • MinimumFlowPerformance(TIMEBASED)

- Strainerheadlosslimitationfortherecirculationpumpsto ensureadequateflow

- Sprayssecuredwithin6.5hours

  • Structural

- Applicableatalltimesandtemperatures

- Anticipatedgoverningcriteriaafter6.5hours

MaximumCoolingCalculation

  • Previouscontainmentanalysistemperaturecurvesuse assumptionstomaximizetemperature
  • Newcalculationisbeingdevelopedtoestimateaconservative minimumtemperatureat6.5hours
  • Preliminaryanalysisshowsminimumsumptemperature

- IP2~110°F

- IP3~115°F

ExpectedVerticalLoopResults

  • Littleornoheadlosseffectfrom3ppmAlat6.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />sand65°F
  • Resultsinatemperaturemarginof~45°F (65°F+45°F=110°F)
  • Intentistodemonstratethatchemicalsdonot precipitatebefore6.5hours

- Structuralbecomesonlycriteria

ApplicationofResults

  • NPSHCriteria

- Above160°F:Applytoconventionaldebrisheadlossvaluesonly

- Below160°F:Applytoconventionaldebrisplus100%WCAPchemical headlossvalues

  • MinimumFlowPerformanceCriteria(<6.5hours)

- Applytoconventionaldebrisheadlossvalues

  • StructuralLimitCriteria

- Applytoconventionaldebrisplus100%WCAPchemicalheadloss values

April 28, 2009 LICENSEE:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY:

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

TELECON WITH ENTERGY ON APRIL 16, 2009, ON CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING FOR GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 (TAC NOS. MC4689 AND MC4690)

On April 16, 2009, a telephone call was held between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee).

The purpose of the call was to discuss the licensee's plans to conduct chemical effects testing to support analyses required by NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors."

The analyses are being performed for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). See Enclosure 1 for a list of participants on the call, and Enclosure 2 for the handout provided by Entergy. The NRC staff generally agreed with the test protocol, but stressed two points: (1) that additional details (e.g., post-Ioss-of-coolant-accident pH range) would be needed for the NRC staff to assess the conservative nature of the IP test, and (2) the NRC staff's comments about the vendor's proposed test approach was unique to IP and that other licensee's tests would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Please direct any inquiries to me at (301) 415-2901.

Sincerely, Ira!

John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 1-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees
2. Licensee Handout cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrPM~IBoska RidsOGCRp LPL1-1 Reading File RidsNrrLASLittle RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR RidsNrrDssSsib RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsRgn1 MailCenter RidsNrrDciCsgb PKlein BBickett ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML091130122 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA CSGB LPL 1-1/BC(A)

NAME JBoska SLittie PKlein RGuzman DATE 4/27/09 4/27/09 4/27/09 4/28/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY