ML18082A817
| ML18082A817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1980 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310460 | |
| Download: ML18082A817 (9) | |
Text
l JUL 2 1 1980 Docket No. : 50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construction Dep~rtment Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear,
Mr. Mi ttl:
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR Local PDR Docket File DL: LB #3 File DEisenhut RPurple RTedesco ASchwencer JKerri gan JLee RMattson SHanauer JK!ii ght VMoore WKreger MErnst
. ELD
- IE ( 3)
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIO.N - SUMP PER.FORMANCE bee:
During our review of containment emergency sump performance under post-LOCA conditions, we have identified two major concerns:
- 1.
Containment sump hydraulic performance, and,
- 2.
The effects of debris on sump perfonnance.
The concerns related to containment sump hydraulic performance have been acceptably resolved.
The enclosed request for additional information addresses our second concern, debris e.ffects.
Because most aspects of this issue must be acceptably resolved prior to issuance of a full power license, your timely response is requested.
Please contact us if you have any a~ditional guestions on this matter.
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page Sincerely, A. Schw~ncer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing 80 0 7 3.
omcc.,.. ~¥;Jm_:*** DL:~BtJ***
SURNAME~,,~~-,ot;.. ~. -~1-.,.~?.~,~~,. ~~~.
DATE~!-.. ?/..Jg.. /.~O.,., 71. *I~./~Q:.
NRC FORM 318 (9*76) NRCM 0240
!'.ru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
JUL 2 1 198Q Docket No.:
50-311 Mr. R. L. M1ttl, General Manager L1cens1ng and Environment Eng1neer1ng and Construction Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. M1tt1:
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR
. Local PDR Docket File DL:LB #3 File DEisenhut RPurple RTedesco ASchwencer JKerrigan JLee RMattson SHanauer JKnight VMoore WKreger MErnst ELD IE (3)
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.. SUMP PERFORMANCE bee:
During our revfew of containment emergency sump perfonnance under p0st-LOCA conditions, we have 1dentif1ed two major concents:
- 1.
Conta.1nment sump hydrau11c perfonnance, and
- 2.
The effects of debris on sump perfonnance.
The concerns related to containment sump hydraulic perfonnanc1 have been acceptably resolved. The enclosed request for additional infonnatfon addresses our second concern, debris effects.
Because most aspects of th1s 1ssue must be acceptably resolved prior to issuance of a full power license, your timely response 1s requested.
Please contact us ff you have any add1t1ona1 questions on thts matter.
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page DL:LB #3 DL: B j Sincerely, A. Schwencer, Acttng Chief Licensing Branch No. *3 Division of Licensing OFFICE~****~u*:.:..*.:****... **~***..........................................................................
'""NAME 1
. J;ot~f /s~ ~ ::r.................................................................. *...
oA-~E~~--*
.. ~~ /_~:_.f_*....:L __ ~+/-~~---~:_:_-_ :_:.~~---~-"..:.*.:..:...:._*. *-~-~*:...:.~_:_* _
- _~_:_:_-_:..:._:_*__:_:..:._*_*.:........... _. __
NRC FORM 318 (9*76l NR0.1 02~0 iru.s. GOVE::FlNf.lCNT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
Docket No.:
50-311
- e.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555.
JUL 2 1 1980 Mr. R. L.
Mittl~ General Manager Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construction Department.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Ne\\vark, New Jersey
- 07,l 01
Dear Mr. Mittl:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SUMP PERFO~MANCE During our review of containment emergency sump performance under pJst-LOCA conditions, we have identified two major concerns:
- l.
Containment sump hydraulic performance, and
- 2.
The eff~cts of debris on sump performance.
The concerns related to containment sump hydraulic p~rformance have been acceptably resolved.
The enclosed request for additional information addresses our second concern, debris.effects.
Because most aspects cif this issue must be acceptably resolved prior to issuance of a full power license, your timely response is requested.
Please contact us if you have any additional questions on this matter.
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page Sincer/uely, /
17
.I.
//.',.I'/*/.
I ~, 'J f;1,, t'l,, *)
- tPl * *,_./ *
(
}.
{, (~ L' c.,
'--" A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
cc:
Richard Fryling, Jr ** Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07100 Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Caber Suite. 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, o. C.
20006 Mr. Leif J. Norrholm c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Region I, Drawer I Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey 08038
H.
Background
Request for Additional Ir!form~_tion - Containment S~
Sa 1 cr:i Pl ant The safety issue of containment emergency sump performance under post-LJCA conditions can be vie\\*:ed as two parts:
{l) containment sump hydraulic performance (i.e., providing adequate NPSH to the recirculation pumps with up to 50 percent of the sump screen area blocked} and {2) the effects of debris.
The first part, sump hydraulic performance, has previously been addressed in the Salem Plant, and has been acceptably resolved as is stated in the SER Supplement No. 4, dated April 18, 1980.
The problem addressed herein is the potential for debris from insulation and other sources within containment to collect and cori~pr-omise the ability of the ECCS to recirculate coolant from the containment sump through the RHR heat exchangers to the vessel.
The fol lm*ling additional infonnation is requested.
For items that have been previously resolved, you may respond by referring to the previous documentation. 1tems* l, 2, and 3 must be resolved prior to full power operation; item 4 *must be resolved pri.or to startup following the 1st refueling.
1 *. In addition to insulation debris resulting from LOCA effects, debris can be generated within the containment from other sources, such as (1) degraded materials {paint chips), and {2) items which are taken into and left in the containment follm1ing maintenance and inspection activities.
Describe how the housekeeping program for Salem will control and I limit debris accumulation from these sources.
The objective is to ass~re that debris capable of defeating the post-LOCA core cooling
- .* functions are identified and removed from the containment. The response should include references t<;> spec{fic procedures or other means to assure that "as licensed" cleanliness \\'Jill be attained prior to initial operation and prior to each resumption of operation.*
- 2.
Address the degree of compliance of. Salem.1*1ith the follm*ling reconuii~ndation which is also set forth as item C.14 of Regulatory Guide l.82:
"Inservice inspection requirements for coolant pump components {trash racks, screens, and pump suction inlets) should include the following:
- a.
Coolant sump components should be inspected during every refueling period downtime, and
- b.
The inspection should be a visual examination of the components for evidence of structural distress or corrosion.
11
. 3.
The resolution of the concerns noted belOl'J plus the provisions of adeq~ate NPSH under non-debris conditions, and adequate housekeeping practices are expected to reduce the likelihood of problems during recirculation.
However, in the event that LPI. recirculation system problems such as pump cavitation or air entrainment do occur, the
- operator should have the capa6ility to ~ecognizc and ~ontend with the problems.
.J Both cavitation and air entrainment could be expected to cause pump vibration and oscillations in system flow rate and pressure.
Shmv that the operator will be provided with sufficient instrumentation.rnd approµriate indications to allow and enable detection of these problems.
List the instrumentation available giving both the location of the sensor and the readout.
~
- / The incidence of cavitation. air entrainment or vortex formation could r
be reduced by reduct i ng the sys tern fl ow rate.
The operator should have the capability to perform indicated actions (e.g., throttling or terminating flow, resort to alternate cooling system, etc.).
Shciw that the emergency operating instructions and the operator training consider the need to monitor the long-term performance of the recirculation
.system and consider the need for corrective actions to alleviate problems.
- 4.
As stated in Salem SER Supplement No. 4, a scale model test of the Salem sump design \\'/ill be conducted to shm'I that adverse hydraulic pheno1;1cna \\,*hi ch would impede long-term cooling of the core following a LOCA will not occur.
\\
This testing will be performed with up to fifty percent of the sump screens blocked.
The responses to the following concerns are required to suprort this assumption.
- a.
Various* types of insulation may be used in the containment.
For each type provide the following information:
(1) The manufacturer, brand name, volume and area covered.
(2) A brief description of the material and an estimate of the tendency of this material either to form particles small enough to pass through the fine screen in the sump or to block the sump trash racks or sump screens.
(3)
Location of the material (metal mirrored, foam glass, foam rl!l,ber, foam concrete, fiberglass, etc.) with respect to whether a ~cchanism exists for the material to be transported to the sur.1p.
b *. Provide an estimate of the amount of debris that the sump inlet screens may be subjected to during a loss-of-coolant accident.
02scribe the origin of the debris and design features of the contJinmcnt SLr:p and I
equipment which would preclude the screens becoming blocked or the sump
- r plugged by debris.
Your discussion should include consideration of at least the following sources of posiible debris:
equipment insulati6n, sand plug materials, reactor cavity annulus sand tanks or sand bags for biological shielding, containment loose -"insulation, and debris which could be generated by failure of non-safety related equipment within the containment.
Entry of sand pl~g materials into the containment sump and the possibility of sand covering the recirculation line inlets prior to the initiation of recircu-lation flm-J from the containment should be specifically addressed.
Please provide this information along with your conclusion regarding the percentage of the screens which would be expected to be blocked by particles of all sizes, including those greater than 250 mils.
- c.
With respect to the conclusio~ that debris with a specific
- gravity greater than unity will settle before reaching the sump cover, consider the potential for flow paths which ~JY direct significant quantities of debris laden* coolant into the lower containment in the vicinity of the sump and the availability or lack of ~ufficient horizontal surface areas or obstructions to promote settlings or holdup of debris prior to reaching the sump.
- d.
Does metal mirror insulation house other materials, fibrous or otherwise, which could become debris if the insulation were blown off as a result of a LOCA?
- 1:1.
'.'--' e.
If the Salem containment contains loose insulation, include
-I:"
examples of how the insulation will be precluded from reaching the sump.
(4)
Provide a schematic drawing of the post-LOCA water level in containment during the recirculation mode relative to the elevation of the ECCS sump floor.
Include on this drawing the location of the containment water level sensor and the elevations correspond to readings of zero and 100 percent of range on the control room indicator.
(5)
Provide several large scale drawings of the containment structures, systems and components at elevations.
(6)
Does the Salem utilize or similar materials in the containment during power operation for purposes such as reactor cavity annulus biological shielding (e.g., sand tahks or sand bags) or reactor cavity blow out sand plugs?