ML18152A315
| ML18152A315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1990 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| GL-89-13, NUDOCS 9012170031 | |
| Download: ML18152A315 (31) | |
Text
.,_..
- e.
.* FF -
~
°()<,.
ICIAL Cu~-) t NOV 2 9 1990 Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 Virginia Electric and Power Compiny ATTN:
Mr. W. L. Stewart Senior Vice President - Nuclear 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MANAGEMENT MEETING
SUMMARY
This letter refers to the Management Meeting held on November 7, 1990, at your corporate facilities in Richmond, VA.
The meeting concerned activities authorized for your Surry facility and involved discussions related to ongoing Recirculation Spray Heat Exchanger Service Water flow testing.
A list of attendees, a meeting summary, and a copy of your handout are enclosed.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulatio~s, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2.
Meeting Summary
- 3.
Handout cc w/encls:
E. W. Harrell Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric & Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 cc w/encls cont'd:
(See page 2)
Sincerely, Luis A. Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects
\\.
9012170031 901129 PDR ADOCK 05000280
,,.--,--- *--c.,/
p PDR
_J_c V
l I
I
e
- Virginia Electric and Power.Company cc w/encls cont 1 d:
J~ P. 0 1 Hanlon Vice President - Nuclear Services Virginia Electric & Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen'Allen, VA 23060 M. R. Kansl er Station Manager Surry Power Station P. 0. Box 315 Surry, VA 23883 R. F. Saunders, Manager Nuclear Licensing Virginia Electric & Power _Co.
5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, VA 23683 W. T. Lough -
Virginia Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation P. 0. Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23209 Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams P. 0. Box 1535
- Richmond, VA 23212 C. M. G. Buttery, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Health 109 Governor Street Richmond, VA 23219 Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Commonwealth of Virginia bee w/encls:
Document Control.Desk DRP Section Chief bee w/encls cont 1d:
(See page 3) l
.e 2
NOV 2 9 1990
e Virginia Electric and Power Company bee w/encls cont'd:
NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 166 Surry, VA
- 23883 NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 78-A Mineial, VA 23117 RJI;J)RP
./ !-<__~/
PFredrickson ll/7y/90 RII :DRP,
µ,Lt>
MSinkule llw/90 3
NOV 2 9 1990
e ENCLOSURE 1*
- *LIST. OF ATTENDEES Virginia Power Company (Virginia Power)
.w. Stewart, Senior Vice President - Nuclear w~ Harrell, Vice President, Nuclear Operations K. Moore, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Services J.. O'Hanlon, Vice President, Nuclear Services R. Saunders; *Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Operations M. Kansler, Station Manager, Surry M. Bowling, Assistant Station Manager, -North Anna *
.J. Maciejewski, Manager,_ Nuclear Quality Assurance E. Gr.check, Manager, Nuclear Engineer
- D. Benson, Manager; Configuration Management.
R._ Berryman, Manager, Nuclear Analysis and Fuels
- R. Rasnic, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering
- D. Sommers,' Supervisor, Ucensing W. Hartley, *Nuclear Onsite Board Chairman R.. Cherry, Licensing Engineer J. Hartka, Licensing Engineer
.*J. Opeka, Northeast Utilities Nuclear Regulatory Convnission, Region II
. S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region 11-(RII)
E. Merschoff, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII M. Sinkule, Chief,. Reactor Projects Branch 2, DRP, RII
. P. Fredrickson, Chief, Pro-jects Section 2A, DRP, RU G. Belisle, Chief~ Test Programs Sec~ion, Di.vision of Reactor Safety, RII
~- Holland, Senior Resident Inspecto~, DRP, RII Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Headquarters H. Berkow,- Director., Project Directorate II-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
B. Buckley, Project Manager, NRR
.N. Wagner, Plant Systems Branch, Division of Systems Technology, NRR
ENCLOSURE 2 MANAGEMENT MEETING
SUMMARY
.. '*-".~. ~:-,. ',
.,'.~' :..
A meeting was conducted at Virginia Power Company's corporate offices in Richmond, Virginia on November 7, 1990, in order to discuss ongoing Reci rcul at ion Spray Heat Exchanger (RSHX) service water testing.
The meeting was opened by Virginia Power Company's Manager of Configuration Management.
He presented the six agenda items, which are included in Enclosure 3, and chaired the discussion that_followed.
During the discussion period, questions were asked and resolved.
Also during the discussion, preliminary flow test data was received involving RSHX service water (SW) testing that was ongoing at the Surry Unit 1 facility.
After completion of the RSHX SW test at Surry Unit 1, -
and review of these completed test results, and based-on discussion held at _
this meeting, Virginia Power personnel would be contacting the NRC to delineate their plans *for the restart of Unit 2.
NRC also requested a meeting fo February 1991, to discuss the long-term actions for resolution of the fouling problem.
~
ft:'
ENCLOSURE 3 HANDOUT SERVICE WATER F'LOW TO RE.CIRCULATION *
- e
.SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGERS SURRY UNIT2 NOVEMBER 7, 1990 e
AGENDA
- 1. Recirculation Spray Heat Exchanger - Service Water System Design
- e
- 2. Review of RSHX Service Water Flow Test Results and Conclusions
- 3. Results of Debris Analysis and Piping Inspections*
- 4. Operational Practices *and Procedures
- 5. Generic Letter 89 Status
- 6. Conclusions and Basis for Unit 2 Restart
- 1. RECIRCULATION SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGER -
SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN
_J The service water system provides a heat sink for heat removal fro*m the containment sump through the Recirculation Spray Heat Exchangers.
Containment sump flow through the shell side of the four RSHXs is provided by two inside recirculation spray pumps and two outside recirculation spray pumps per unit. Flow of service water to the tube side of the heat exchangers is provided by gravity flow from the station intake canal.
Figure 1 - shows a typical train comprised of 2 heat exchangers.
Each unit has 2 trains.
- Figure 2 - provides elevations throughout.a typical flow path. -
Figure 3 - provides service \\Yater flow requirements versus service water temperature as well as seasonal variations in service water temperature..
e
1-RS-E-1C 1-RS-E-18
. 1-SW-MOV-1048
. JI'
)
Bearing Cooling----.
To Mech. Equip. Room J'
Figure 1 Service Water *.
- Flow Path To RSHX's Nonnal Flow 8-1 o fps
\\
. 96" Circulating Water Tunnel Accident Flow 1.0-2.1 fps
- 1-SW-MOV-1030
- ory* Test Inrush
- 15 fps t::J,I
~--48* Service Water Header Normal Flow
.9 to 4.4 Accident Flow 4.1-8.5 "Dry" Test Inrush
- 35,fps
EL 28'0" 1-SW-MOV-103C;D
£ EL 3'-3"
- v EL 12!0" 1-SW-MOV-1048 Internals Removed'
- . t£ EL1~~*.
24"
'( EL -22'-9 31'8".-1---
SERVICE WATER FLOW TO RECIRCULATION SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGERS
'SURRY POWER STATION.
Figure2
- .e EL-US'-8"
Figure _3
! Surry Service Water Average Temperature and SW Flow Requiremel')_ts
. 90 --
80 70 60 50
~
~
v~
/
V
=\\
V
- \\
V l/
40..,
30 20
/
?
/ '.
/
~
.i..
~
. _.I'
- I" 1 0 0
- 0)
O>
0
~
~
~
-C\\I*
Avg SW Temp (°F)
~
~
0
~
0.,...
10,000.
9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 IG=M I 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
- SW Flow Required (GPM) per Containment Analysis Assuming* Non-fouled Heat Exchangers
- 2. REVIEW OF RSH'X SERVICE WATER FLOW TEST RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Both tests were performed on Unit 1, "B" train of service water to "B".
and "C recirculation spray. heat exchangers as depicted in Figure 1 Temporary instrumentation was installed e
RSHX SW FLOW TEST SEQ.UENCE First Test:
October 14, 15, and 16.
Wet test "As-found" condition
'One circulating water box open Flow initiated manually.in 998" and then IIC
Initial flow: "B" 8900 gpm
- e "C" 9200 gpm.
Flow rates trended downward
RSHX SW FLOW TEST FIRST 9 HRS AVERAGE FLOWS FOR B & C BX 9---------,-.------------------------
8.5 e
8
- s ID
~ "O 7.5 f.!1 i:::
al
- IJ It: :::f
~~
7 6.5 61----1-----------
CW Isolation 5 _____ __._ __
~
__,_ ______.._-----~--.1 22:48 01:12 03:36 06:00 08:24 TIME ON 10/14-10/15 D
1-RS-E-1B
+
1-RS-E-1C
RSHX SW FLOW TEST 1ST HX ISOLATION A VER.AGE FLOWS FUR B & C BX 11 10 9
JI.Luu,.;., \\~
l""ffll' 8
'II 7
- z IJJ
~ "d 6
~~
.. IJJ re :;;
5
~~
[
""' 'JT.... """...... ""',.....
C Isolated
. *v'
,.. /
( l B Isolated** t7
~ ~;v/ I l
'f IO
,(l 4
1[)
I J 3
\\
- ~
10 I
2 I
10 I ]
1
]
IC~
0 1................
11 ** ~ 1111111...
17:16 17:45 18:14 18:43 19:12 19:40 20:09 20:38 TIME OF DAY ON 10/15 D
t-RS-E-1B
+
1-RS-E-lC
RSHX SW FLOW TEST SEQUENCE SW Throttling and CW Isolation Sequence Flow* incre~se was consistent. with. increase in CW discharge tunnel vacuum Higher system DP created by CW isolation trended downward and returned to pre-CW.isolation values i~ about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
- Equilibrium flows rE:ached 8-9 hours into the test
- "B" 5500 gpm
- "C" 6300 gpm Sequential SW Isolation Each HX was isolated about 25 minutes
. Significant flow recove,ry occurred:
"C" flow increased from 6300 gpm to over 8000 gpm "B" flow increased from 5400 gpm to over 9500 gpm Three other SW isolations were conducted with similar results I
( continued)
_ Second Test: October 22
- Dry test simulating accident co~ditions *
- Three circulating water boxes were open*
- At test initiation,.the 103 a_nd 105 SW valves were opened and CW flow was isolated from MCR *
- No waterhammer transient was observed
- Instrument readings
- Air migration into the instrument lines observed
- Flow instrumentation readings were lower than expected *
- After resolution of instrumentation problems, stable flow readings obtained e*
RETEST. 10/22-23 HX'e B & C RECORDED FLOWS
- 12 11 10 9
- a J
- g fJ ~i 7
- fJ 6
ar: ::f 3 0
~~
5 4
a 2
- Stable Flow: B I.~
\\_
I I
r"
\\
~
.I "t"
. I
/Stable Flow: C
[!J
/
iJ
~
1 T
~
[j) t:.J 1
~....
1L 0
13:55 14:52 15:50 -
16:48 17:45 18:43 19:40 20:38 TIME OF DAY
.D 1-RS-E-1B.
+
1.:...RS-E~tc
- s fJ p.. 'ti i:.:, A m
fJ at
~
~-~
RSHX SW FLOW TEST RETEST. 10/22-23 9
8 7
6 5
4 a
2 1
0 VALVE MANIPULATIONS
~-
._J **
N ---
..,....in B Isolation.
.. []
/
/
I" ro l'I' "'
1
[~
[~
C Isolation r
..... 1 E ~
l....
1 Tl
'"I J-0
-H 21:07 21:36 22:04 22:33 23:02 23:31 00:00 00:28 00:57 01:26 TIME OF MY D. 1-RS-E-1B
+
1-RS-E-tC
( continued)
SW Isolation A sequential isolation of "C" then "B" was performed as in the first test
-. Flow recovery occurred:
- "C" increased from 2200 gpm to 5300 gpm
- "B" increased from 4300 gpm to 8300 gpm-e
RSHX SW FLOW TEST C.ONCLUSION-S Conclusions Based.on RSHX Testing The system resistance and flow characteristics 'predicted by
- design basis calculations have been confirmed The flow reductions observed during the test were the result of macrofouling of the tuJ)esheet Macrofouling in the RSHXs occurred early in the test - no long-term macrofouling trends were observed Macrofouling was more severe during the second test due to the high initial inrush flow from the "dry" initial condition Sequential isolation of the RSHXs demonstrated flow recovery from macrofouling blockage
- ( continued)
Results of the two tests indicate the desirability of ~perating with the section of piping 6etween the 203 valves and 204 valve filled*
up to elevation*12' just below the 204 valves. This approach will improve system performance in the following areas:.
Service water will reach the RSHXs sooner The initial inrush flow will be much lower than was observed in the second test, reducing the likelihood of dislodging marine
- growth
PERFORMANCE OF INSTALLED INSTRUMENTATION
-. Installed instrumentation includes {see Figure 1):
- Flow transmitters and associated RTDsat discharge of each RSHX
- Flow transmitters and associated RTDs in each train's 36" header
-. Observation of installed instrumentation was not within the scope of the flow tests - no readings were recorded Control room personnel noted discrepancies between installed flow
- e instrumentation and test data The iiow iransmitters will be removed, inspected, cleaned, reinstalled, and
- calibrated prior to startup
- During the retest, performance of installed instrumentation will be recorded and assessed
- 3. RESULTS OF DEBRIS ANALYSIS AND PIPING l,NSPECTIONS Analysis of debris in RSHXs from the two Unit 1 tests identified three* -
categories of debris. Piping inspections on both units identified the source of each type of debris (See Figure 1 A).
Hydroids - from the 48" headers Shells - from the 30" pipe sections between the 48" headers and the 103/203 valves Scale - from the vertical 24" pipe segments at the inlets to the RSHX
- The location and type of debris, normal and accident flow velocities in the.
various pipe sections, and the test results indicate that the debris which.
accumulated in the RSHXs was resident in the service water flow path
- prior to the test.
There is no evidence of significant debris ingress from the CW tunnel and canal.
- e
1-RS-E-1C Scale 1-SW-MOV-104C
,I 1-SW-MOV-104B
.,I Slit, Shells Figure 1A Service Water -,
Flow Path To
- RSHX's Debris Locations*
e
RESULTS OF DEBRIS ANALYSIS AND PIPING INSPECTIONS
( continued}
- Corrective Measures and Environmental Considerations 48" header and entrance area at 96" header will be completely cleaned of hydroids 48" header will be alternately stagnated to reduce potential for return of hydroids.
Reduced sw*temperatures during the remainder of the Unit 2 cycle will retard hydroid growth Loose flakes or coating will be removed from the vertical
- pipe segments prior to start-up of Unit 2.
-. Piping from 48" header to 203 valves wHI be cleaned of silt and shells e
- 4. OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES Unit 2 will be operated with the piping from the 203 valves to the top of the 36" header filled with treated condensate grade water Suctions to Bearing Cooling will be altered on an approximately weekly basis to intermittently stagnate the 48" headers to minimize or prevent the return of marine growth
- A safety review of operation with the intermediate header flooded e
has been completed - no safety concerns were identified
- 5. GENERIC LETTER 89-1.3 STATUS Commitments
, -. Component Heat Transfer,Testing RSHX SW Flow Test CCHX Heat Transfer Test MCR Chiller Performance Test Biofouling and Blockage Program System/Component Inspection and Maintenance Criteria*
Chemical Treatment Evaluation.
Design Basis Confirmation Service Water ~ystem Design Basis Documents Service Water System Single Failure Evaluation
GENERIC LETTER* 89-13 STATUS (continued)
Current lnservice Testing Activities
- Emergency Service Water Pumps.*
1-PT-25.3A, B, & C conduct performance tests monthly
. Control Room Chillers*
STP-32.16 conducts performance test on the chiller Service Water pumps and strainers three times per week PT-32.16 conducts.performance test on the chillers and air.
handling units every 6 months Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger*
STP-41A, B, C, & D conduct a weekly test to check flow and
- differential pressure which is compared against an established range Charging Pump Lube Oil Coolers PT-18.8 conducts performance test quarterly on Service Water.
pumps which supply the lube oil coolers Charging pumps in service - temperatures are monitored e
GENERIC LETTER 89-13 STATUS (continued)
Commitment Implementation Component Testing RSHX flow testing conducted per ST-290.
MCR chiller heat transfer test procedure under development CCHX heat transfer test procedure under development..
. Biofouling and Blockage Program Biofouiing/biockage maintenance and inspection criteria type 1 Report completion scheduled 11/15/90 Chemical treatment evaluation Type 1 Report issued 8/6/90 Chemical treatment Type 3 activities in progress Design Basis Confirmation
-
- Service Water System Design Basis Document received 10/29/90*-.
completion scheduled 11/30/90.
- Service Water System single failure ev.aluation completion scheduled 11/30/90 A'
e
- 6. CONCLUSIONS AND BASIS FOR UNIT 2 RESTART The testing performed has demonstrated that the hydraulic performance of the system is consistent with*design expectations The degradation of system performance observed in both tests was due to macrofouling The debris which caused the macrofouling was resident in the headers that directly feed the RSHXs prior to test initiation There is no evidence that any long-term macrofouling from the CW tunnel or canal occurred during the test.
-. The sources of debris have been identified and the debris. removed - no
- significant recurrence of debris is expected during the remainder of Unit 2's operating cycle The decision to pre-flood the system to the 12i elevation will enhance system performance and reduce the potential for macrofouling Unit 2 can be operated through the remainder of the cycle with the assurance of significant margins in RSHX performance
.,.