ML16165A004

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of 6/1/2016 Public Meeting with Union Electric Company to Discuss Generic Safety Issue 191 and Callaway Plant Unit 1's Debris Testing Plan
ML16165A004
Person / Time
Site: Callaway Ameren icon.png
Issue date: 06/23/2016
From: Klos L
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:
Union Electric Co
Klos L, NRR/DORL/LPLIV-1, 415-5136
References
CAC MC4671
Download: ML16165A004 (5)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 23, 2016 LICENSEE: Union Electric Company FACILITY: Callaway Plant, Unit 1

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF JUNE 1, 2016, PUBLIC MEETING WITH UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY TO DISCUSS GENERIC SAFETY ISSUE 191 AND DEBRIS TESTING PLAN FOR CALLAWAY, UNIT 1 (CAC NO. MC4671)

On June 1, 2016, a Category 1 public meeting was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Union Electric Company, the licensee, at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's debris testing plan to support technical resolution of Generic Safety Issue 191 for Callaway Plant, Unit 1. The meeting notice and agenda, dated May 17, 2016, are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML16138A297. A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure 1.

The licensee's presentation, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML16152A123, included the plan's Risk-Informed Approach, Plant Characteristics, Test Debris Loads, Test Plan Chemistry, and the plan's Testing Process.

The NRC staff queried the licensee about numerous points related to the debris test plan. The staff's questions and corresponding licensee responses are as shown in the following table.

NRC Staff Question Licensee Response What is the proposed lab schedule and See the schedule shown on sheet 8 of the sequence for testing? presentation.

How does the test plan account for The licensee discussed pump operation related to submergence? submergence and tank water level.

What is the square footage of the 3,300 ft 2 per strainer.

strainer?

How are the curbs accounted for in the No credit is taken for the curbs in the transport test plan analysis? analysis.

When is small fiber added during the Small fiber is after all fine fiber. Some particulate test? may be added with the small fiber.

Are sprays considered on for transport Yes, for a conservative transport analysis.

analysis?

What is the containment spray setpoint? The setpoint is less than 4 inches.

What were the issues that occurred with The 2008 test did not conserve or properly address the 2008 test? and consider volume accountability in the test.

NRC Staff Question Licensee Response Why is a surrogate matching considered Because the 2008 test is a basis for the test to be based on the 2008 test? considered successful for the pilot plant.

How is pH determined? It is based on pool volume and the maximum possible fiber load.

How long is the return to tank transition It is on for about one turnover period.

line on?

How much calcium phosphate is added? The amount of calcium phosphate predicted for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (based on the largest fiberglass insulation exposure) is added using the higher test flow rate.

After the testing flow is reduced to reflect the containment sprays being secured, the rest of the chemical precipitates (calcium phosphate and aluminum oxyhydroxide) are added.

What is maximum velocity for the test It is based on Callaway's specific maximum based on? velocity.

When are sprays terminated? Sprays are secured at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

In the test analysis, are two strainers Yes as equipment states are determined by considered in service? probability risk assessments.

Is the strainer subject to vortexing? This is addressed in the test plan.

How will the test determine maximum During the shakedown process.

particulate?

How are hold points determined in the They are determined by the hold point criteria test plan? stipulated in the test plan.

What percentage of the total predicted The licensee responded that they would add WCAP-16530 chemical precipitate load WCAP-16530 chemical precipitate until no would be added to the licensee's head incremental head loss increase was observed (the loss test? exact quantity of precipitate was not specified since it would depend on the head loss stabilization). The NRC staff noted that they have observed many head loss tests where peak head loss is achieved during early precipitate addition and subsequent additions of chemical precipitate have not resulted in exceeding initial peak head loss value. The staff has also observed that head loss behavior with chemical precipitate addition varies and can be highly influenced by debris bed characteristics (e.g., bed thickness, types of debris, relative amounts of fiber/particulate).

Therefore, the staff will be evaluating strainer head loss tests results on a case-by-case basis. The staff noted that any testing that relies on adding less than 100% of the predicted WCAP-16530 chemical precipitate needs a strong technical justification.

One member of the public was in attendance. Public Meeting Feedback forms were not received.

L. John os, Proje Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-483

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

LIST OF ATTENDEES JUNE 1, 2016, MEETING WITH UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY TO DISCUSS GENERIC SAFETY ISSUE 191 AND CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 DEBRIS TEST PLAN DOCKET NO. 50-483 John Klos U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Matt Yoder NRC Ashley Smith NRC Steve Smith NRC Paul Klein NRC Marioly Diaz-Colon NRC Andrea Russell* NRC Tom Elwood Union Electric Company (UEC)

Roger Andreasen UEC Bruce Letellier Alien Science (AS)

Janet Leavitt AS Benjamin Bridges AS Ludwig Haber Alden Brian Krystek* Engineering Planning and Management (EPM), Inc.

Eric Fulhage* EPM Marvin Lewis* Member of the public, unaffiliated

  • participated via phone Enclosure

Meeting Notice ML16138A297; Meeting Summary ML16165A004; Handouts ML16152A123 OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL4-1/PM NRR/DORL/LPL4-1/LA NRR/DORL/LPL4-1/BC NRR/DORL/LPL4-1/PM NAME JKlos JBurkhardt RPascarelli JKlos DATE 6/21/16 6/14/16 6/11/16 6/23/16