ML17256B054

Forwards Supplemental Safety Evaluation Re NUREG-0737,Item II.E.1.1, Auxiliary Feedwater Sys. Resolution of Six Open Items Provided

ML17256B054
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/16/1982
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.E.1.1, TASK-TM LSO5-82-06-052, LSO5-82-6-52, NUDOCS 8206240264
Download: ML17256B054 (12)

Text

'

June 16, 1982 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82-06-052 Mr. John E. Maier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas

& Electric Company 89 East(Ave'nue Rochestei New York 14649 DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR Local PDR ORB Reading NSIC DCrutchfield HSmith JLyons PWagner OELD OI&E ACRS (10)

SEPB

Subject:

Auxiliary Feedwat'er System Evaluation NUREG-0737 Item II.E.1.1 - Ginna By letter dated January 29, 1981, an NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report on the Ginna Auxiliary Feedwater (AFM) System reliability was se'nt tto you,'for review.

This evaluation contained six open items for which our review was got complete.

He have completed our review of your subsequent submittals.

Our resolution for the six open items, Recommendations GS-3, GS-6, PGL"-3, Additional Short Term Recommendation 2,

Long Term Recommendation 2 and Basis for AFM Flow Require-

ments, are,'pr'ovided in ~the enclosed Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report.

Based on oui review, we con'sider the requirements of Item II.E.1.1 to have been met.

Sincerely, Original signed by Encl osute:

';.Suppl erne'nta1

.Sa fety Evaluation Report Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing

, 82062402b4 820bib

'DR ADOCK 05000244 PDR OFFICE)

SURNAME/

OATEf B 5 L

~ ~

~

~

~

~

H 6 ($ (82 ORB

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ \\

~

gELg n:kab

.6J.ZZD2....

0 o

~

~

DC iel d 6( J.k (62 NRG FORM 318 u 0-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY VSGPO: S981~39-960 i

4

1 +

1 p

J

Nr. John E. Haier June 16, 1982 CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire

.LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and t1acRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.

W.

Sui te 1100 Washington, D. C.. 20036 Nr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester',

'New Yoik 14618'*

Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

, He'rbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'..

U. &nuclear. Regulatory. Commission "Washington,.

D..- C.

20555

-Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 'Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Resident Inspector

R.

E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 145]9 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Supervi sor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

Ontario, New York 14519

=.g~

~

Dr.

Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Or. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

.20555

I~

I'

~.

~

~

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT E.

GINNA IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEMS'ecommendation GS The licensee has stated that it throttles AFW system flow to avoid water hammer.

The licensee should reexamine the practice yCP

~4 of throttling AFW system flow to-avoid water hammer.-

~.

~ '

~ 1

~

~

.The licens'ee should verify that the AFW system-will supply on demand sufficient.

.initial-flow to the necessary steam generators to'assure adequate decay hea't removal following loss of main feedwater fl'ow and a reactor trip from

)

1004 power.

In cases where this reevaluation results in an increase in initial AFW system flow, the licensee should provide sufficient information to demonstrate'that the required initial AFW system flow will not result in C'lant damage due to~ter hamner.

. Evaluation The licensee responded by letters dated November 28,.1979 and June 8, 1981, and stated that auxilipry feedwater is not throttled to avoid waterSammer.

Upon initiation of auxiliary feedwater each AFW flow control valve cycles from, a full open position to a throttled position that permits flow of less than 230 gpm but more than'00 gpm.

The minimum flow require-ment for AFW flow established by accident analysis is 200 gpm.

We fi'nd the licensee's response to this recommendation acceptable.

2.

Recommendation GS The licensee should confirm flow path availability of an AFW system flow train that has been out of service to perform periodic testing or maintenance as follows:

a.

Procedures should be implemented to require,'an operator to determine that the AFW system valves are properly aligned and a second operator to independently verify that the valves are properly aligned.

b.

The licensee should propose Technical Specifications to assure that prior to plant startup following an extended cold shutdown, a flow test would be performed to verify the normal flow path from the primary AFW system water source to the steam generators.

test should be conducted with AFW system valves in their The *f1ow-normal.

alignment:

Evaluation - The licensee responded in letters dated November 28, 1979 and Hay 22, 1980,, stating that after the performance of periodic tests or mainten-ance on the Auxiliary Feedwater'and Standby Auxiliary Feedwater System,'he Results and Test Department personnel return a'll the valves manipulated to

'I their safeguard position as directed by the procedure.,

In addition, at the completion of the test, an independeflt'Verification of valve alignment is performed by the Operation Department personnel.

The independent verifi-cation is part of the procedure and applies to all safety related valves in the system that are manipulated during testing or maintenance.

Once the

'.ndependent verification is. accomplished, the Shift Supervisor signs the

~

~

procedure as completed:

'We find the response to part a. of.this recommendation acceptable.

By letter dated June 8,

1981 the licensee stated that the Ginna Technical Specifications

4. 8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.4 and 4.8. 6 require that the minimum required flow from each pump be demonstrated monthly except during cold or refueling.shutdowns or be demonstrated prior to exceeding 5< power during startup if the time since the last test exceeds one month.

The water during these tests for the main AFW pumps comes from the condensate storage tan'ks and is discharged.to the steam generators through the normal flow path.

As additional assurance, the standby AFW pumps undergo a similar monthly test but use water from a test tank, rather than service water which is'he primary source for the standby AFW pumps.

The standby pumps discharge the water to the steam generators for the test.

Since the use of the standby AFW pumps is needed only as an emergency backup to the main AFW pumps the introduction.of, lesser *qual Hy water (i.e.,'ervice water) is not'.,warranted

. for test purposes.

The test provided will.'not uti'Aze.the normal pump-

~

1

. suction path.

Testing of the standby AFW suction valves from the service water system is required on. a monthly basis -by-Technical Specification 4.8.5.

~"

~ r Thus, the operability of the flow path for thh standby and main AFW systems is demonstrated following extended cold shutdowns.

4 e

We find the response to part b of this Qqgpmendation acceptable.

3.

Additional Short Term Recommendation-2

- The licensee should perform a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> endurance test on all AFW system pumps, if such a test of continuous V

period of operation has not been accomplished "to date.

Following the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> pump run, the pumps should be shut'down and cooled down and then restarted and run for one hour.

Test acceptance criteria should include demonstration that the pumps remain within design limits with respect to bearing/bearing oil temperatures and vibration and that pump room ambient conditions (temperature, humidity) do not exceed environmental qualification limits for safety-related equipment in the room.

The licensee should provide a'ummary of the conditions and results of the tests..

The summary should include the'ollowing:

(1')

a brief description of the" test method (including flow schematic d'iagram) and how the test was

~

~

4 instrumented (i.e., where and how bearing temperatures were measured).

(2)

A discussion of how the test conditions (pump flow, head, speed and steam temperature) compare to design operating conditions.

(3) Plots of bearing/bearing oil 'temperature vs.

time for each bearing of each:AFH --

pump/driver demonstrating that temperature design limits were-not exceeded.

1, C

(4) A plot.of-.;pump,room ambient temperature and humidity vs..-time 'demonstrating....

that &e pump "room. ambient conditions do pot eXceed environments'1 qualification

'limits-for safety-related equipment in the room.

(5) A statement confjrming that the pump, vibration did.not exceed al-lowable limits during tests..

Evaluation - Standb Auxiliar Feedwater Pum s'

By letter dated May 28, 1980, I

the licensee provided the results of the 08 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> endurance tests for the'tandby Auxiliary Feedwater pumps.

A deWMption of how the test was conducted and instrumented included the water source and flow path for the tests and the method of monitoring and recording the pump and motor bearing temperatures.

The test condi.tions were in"conformance with the pump speed and discharge pressure conditions specified in the recommendation.

Plots of the bearing oil temperatures versus tim'e were provided for each pump and each motor bearing and indicated that design limits were not exceeded.

The data provided on pump bearing vibration indicated that the vibrations, which were measured periodically during the tests, were well -within the allowable limit.

During the endurance test, the. outside door of the pump room was,kept open to the environment to help maintaih the supply tank temperature low and to accomnodate a condensate supply tank bleed discharge hose.

There-r fore, the temperature and humidity measurements did not reflect actual pump room environmental'conditions.

By letter dated June 8, 1981, the licensee provided the following additional information on. the pump room environmental conditions.

The standby pumps are designed to operate with temperatures of the room environment and-the liquid pumped'as'high as 120 F.

The yoom"coolers ~--designed to maintain.

Ql the temperature at or. below 120 F.

The cooler design considered heat loads 0

originating from the pump motors, room lighting, control>anels,-solar radiation on the building and the cooling system drive motors.

A11 so'urces which may contribute heat to the room during required operating modes have been considered and, therefore, environmental-qualification limits for. the equipment would not be exceeded.

'C~

~

P Based upon conformance of the test results with the acceptance criteria stated in the recommendation and the information on the pump room environment, we conclude that the licensee s response to this recomnendation is acceptable

'for the Standby'Auxiliary Feedwater pumps.

Turbine Driven Auxiliar Feedwater Pum

- By letter dated June 8, 1981, the licensee provided'a schematic diagram indict.og how the endurance test was conducted and instrumented.

Plots of bearing oil temperature versus time for the pump and the turbine were provided.

The pump and bearing oil temperatures were within the manufacturer's temperature design limits.

A plot of pump room ambient temperature versus time and a record of pump room humidity versus time were provided.

The, pump room ambient conditions did not exceed the environmental qualifications for the equipment.

The pump vibration

measurements taken during the test did not exceed the allowable vibration limits.

Based upon conformance of the test results with the acceptance criteria stated in the recommendation, we conclude that the licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable for the tu'rbine dry'en

'uxiliary feedwater pump.

~ Main Motor Driven Auxiliar -Feedwater'.Pum s -

By- letter dated January 8, 1982,'he Licensee provided the results of the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> endurance -tests-.for-the motor driven auxiliary feedwater pumps (A and B).

A description of how the tests were conducted and instrumented included the water source and flow bypath for the tests and the-method of monitoring and recording the pump and 4

motor bearing temperatures.

The test conditions were in conformance with:tbe

• >4 pump speed and discharge pressure conditions specified in the recommendation.

plots of the.bearing oil temperatures versus time were'provided for each pump and each motor bear'ing and indicated that design limits were not exceeded.

The data provided on pump vibration indicated that the vibrations, which were measued periodically during the:tests, were well within the allowable limits.

The humidity and temperature of the room 'housing the pumps were within the environmental design criteria limits.

Based upon conformance of the test results with the acceptance criteria stated in the recommendation, we conclude that the Licensee's response to this..recommendation is acceptable for the motor driven auxiliary feedwater pumps.

Recommandation GL At least one AFH system pump a

d t an i

s.associated flow path and essential instrumentation should automatically initiate AFM system flow and be capable of being operated independently of any alternating current power source for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Conversion of direct-curren't power o

power to alternating current is acceptable..

V

~

4 r

~

~ A va1uation -

By. letter-- dated Juno 8;.'1981;.'.the 1'icensee provided the results of an i'nstrumented test to-demonstrate that the tu

-b'- one rsven auxiliary feedwatet pump is capable of'eing.-o'perated independently of ac power for

)

two hours.

The test was conducted on April 17, 1981 while the plant was in operation.

The pymp was aligned to ft.ed~sensate water to.each steam generato'r at a rate. of 100 GPM; (200 GPt1 total). -All service water to the pump (turbine Jube o71, reservoir eooTer and the pump outboard bearing) was secured throughout the test.

During this two hour test the pump and turbine oil temperatures remained conservatively within the Manufacturer's temperature limits.

The lube oil reservoir temperature was also conservatively below the established upper limit.

The pump room ambient conditions did not exceed the environ-mental qual ification 1 imits for the equipment.

This test demonstrated that the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump can be operated at least two hours independent of ac power.

The turbine driven auxiliary feedwater train is also capable of being automatically initiated independent of ac power.

Therefore, we conclude that the existing turbine

'driven AFW train is acceptable with respect to this recommendation.

eC 5.

Lon Term Recommendation-2

- The licensee'hould evaluate the water source capabilities (AC powered service water pumps, condensate transfer pumps and the limited inventory of condensate storage tank water gravity feed to the turbine pump suction) to assure that there is a water source sufficient go

~ 1 supply the required AFl<.flow for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> independent of any AC.,power source..-....

r Evaluation '- By letter dated. Harcb=.28, l(89, RG&E.provided the:decay'eat l

4

'.. analyses.

on which they have based Ahe'ir.conclusion that 22,500 gallons total inventory in the, condensate storage tanks-will provide the requir'ed flow by gravity feed to the pump suction for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of operation independent of

. ac power.

Paragraph 3.4.l.c of the Technical -Specifications issued in

\\

~

Amendment 42 to the Ginna operating.license on Nay 11, 1981, requires a

e minimum condensatt; tank inventory of"Q'@Ql gallons.

Me conclude, therefore,

~o that the licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable.

6.

Basis for Auxiliar Feedwater Flow Re uirements - He required that the licensee provide AFH system flow design bases information as applicable to the design basis trgnsients and accident conditions.

The licensee s

response.was provided in a letter dated July 14, 1980.

Additionally, the l)censee provided the results of its main feedline break analysis

-in a letter dated Hay 24, 1974.

Me have. reviewed the licensee's response to this recomnendation and conclude that the licensee's flow'esign basgs'

~

~

are acceptable.

0

~

g

~.

'I I