ML19256D264
| ML19256D264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1969 |
| From: | Ross D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910170777 | |
| Download: ML19256D264 (3) | |
Text
Mc UNITED STATES an o
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION W ASH INGTO N. D.C.
20545 h
AUG2 2 1660 Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director, Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing THRU: Charles G. Long, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 3 //, g Division of Reactor Licensing TESTING OF FAN COOLERS FOR THREE MII.E ISLAND UNIT 1 (DOCKET 50-289)
We notified Met-Ed in a letter dated February 5,1969 that we wanted to review the results of their fan cooler tests when available. Met-Ed sent us a letter (dated May 9,1969) which enclosed a report entitled
" Summary of Factory Tes ts, Reactor Building Fan Assemblies." Their letter furnished this schedule for further information:
a.
Emergency Coil Test: Final report on or about July 1,1969.
b.
Relief Valve Test: Same as (a).
c.
Motor-Seal-Winding Tests: Completed.
d.
Fan and Motor Tests: Report by January 1970.
The summary report sent in May 1969 -'as reviewed by RP (memo from D. Ross to C. Long, June 4) and RT (memo from R. Pollard to V. Moore, August 4).
I called G. Bierman of Met-Ed on August 5 to discuss our comments. He said that he would have someone in Gilbert Associates (the A/E) call back.
On August 19 Bill Shields and Walt Steidle of GAI called me.
The sub-stance of the conversation follows.
1.
Cooling Tube Flow Rates I noted inconsistencies in the report vs PSAR in tube flow rates, linear velocities, and total flow per cooler. No explanation was readily available.
2.
Fan-Housing Relief Valves No information as to design adequacy has been furnished.
I said this would be needed at POL.
I didn' t understand how test instrumentation would be used. The tests have not been run yet.
Neither GAI person was familiar with the test.
3.
Inlet Filters I had expressed concern that the DBA pressure wave might collapse the inlet filter. Their response was that an hT-2 filter is a stainless-steel mesh, not a paper filter.
1-450 134 wow 777
, Roger S. Boyd 2
4.
Motor Loads Bob Pollard of RT had noted inconsistencics in motor ratings (amps, speed, hp) vs air flow. Shields will investigate.
5.
Motor Insulation We discussed use of Class H insulation in a totally-enclosed motor.
I told him we will need more information relating the behavior, including of f-gassing, in the DBA radiation environment.
6.
Water Seal Shields said the nuclear services water (NSW) system furnishea water for the seal and cooling the air-water motor RX.
Therefore cooler operation is tied to the NSW, even though heat removal is directly to the river via a separate system:
I said we would review the reliability, including immunity from single failures, at the POL.
7.
Motor Grease A "special" radiation-resistant motor grease is provided. Shields said that it was discussed in a GE topical report on motors (we don' t have the report). I said we would need to review, at some time, the resistance of the lubricants relative to the DBA.
8.
Motor Tests I passed on Pollard's comments on the basis for 180* C - 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> specification for the motor test.
Shields said it related to aging but didn' t have a formula, 9.
Fan Asse=bly Seismic Design The housing seismic resistance is calculated, but the motor seismic resistance is measured by experiment.
I asked if the fan was on the motor shaf t, and the motor was running, during the vibration tests.
Shields didn't know.
10.
Motor Dielectric Insulation resistance is not necessarily measured just af ter a motor test, hence there is a possibility of a temporary insulation breakdown that " cures" (dryout?) af ter the test and before observation.
Shields didn't think a quick observation was necessary. No resolution was obtained. Some tests have already been run on Reliance motors (not for Med-Ed) by Joy Manufacturing, who will also test the GE motor.
Spray additive was simulated for the Reliance motor Oberic acid only) and a complete range (boric acid, caustic sodium thiosulfate) should be used for the GE design.
}k 0
\\
Roger S. Boyd 3
CONCLUSSIONS 1.
We at DRL still do not have a clear understanding as to hcw tests will be conducted and on what basis results will be accepted.
Further conversations or meetings with Met-Ed or GAI will not be use ful. Only meetings with the people directly involved, preferably at the test location, will sted suf ficient light.
2.
On the basis of the DRL evaluation as documented in the attached memos, and on the basis of the telephone conservation reported in this memo, we should notify Met-Ed by letter that they have not supplied us with sufficient information on the 2an cooler tests. We could indicate generally the areas of deficiency in the letter, but I don't recommend a formal question attachment.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
RT - Instrumentation and Power Branch, together with someone from CO, should visit the motor test locations. This could be especially fruitful since the GE and Reliance motor tests are at the same f actory.
2.
We should informally request Met-Ed to compile, in a single report, complete information on design, test, and evaluation of the fan coolers. This report could be submitted with or in the FSAR.
)7 wp Denwood F. Ross Reactor Project Branch No. 3 Division of Reactor Licensing Attachments 1.
Memo to CGLong, dtd 6/4/69 Review of Med-Ed Fan Cooler Report 2.
Memo to VAMoore, dtd 8/4/69 Review of " Summary of Factory Tests, Reactor Bldg Fan Assys.
1450 136