ML19305A991
| ML19305A991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1980 |
| From: | Capra R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-2.E.1.1, TASK-TM TAC-44673, NUDOCS 8003190016 | |
| Download: ML19305A991 (10) | |
Text
'
c>
DISTRIBUTION:
SUMMARY
OF MEETINGS WITH SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAt UTILITY DISTRICT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1980 and NOVEMBER 29, 1979 TO DISCUSS AFW SYSTEM UPGRADES FOR RANCHO SECO Dock et 50-312 S. ISRAEL NRC PDR M G. MAZETIS LPDR P. MATTHERS ORB #4 READING C. LIANG NRR READING J. J0YCE SB READING D. THATCHER H. DENTON J. WERMIEL E. CA3E S. NEWBERRY D.IISENHUT H. WALKER (ACRS)
R. VOLLMER Z. ROSZTOCZY D. DAVIS P. NORIAN D. ZIEMANN H. SILVER L. SHA0 M. RUBIN V. N0ONAN M. TAYLOR W. GAMMILL M. CUNNINGHAM A. SCHWENCER R. CAPRA T. IPPOLITO R. REID B. GRIMES G. LAINAS P. CHECK S. LEWIS R. BLACK R. HOEFLING D. GARNER R. INGRAM OI&E (3)
R. FRALEY, ACRS (16)
J. BUCHANAN j
TERA W. KANE D. ROSS T. NOVAK 80031Do O l 4
pn nua g1 (o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
e g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 D
j
,o F ebruary 23, 1980 Docket No.: 50-312 LICENSEE:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District FACILITY: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 12,1980 AND NOVEMBER 29, 1979 MEETINGS TO DISCUSS UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RANCHO SECO AUXILIARY FEEDWATER (AFW) SYSTEM On Feburary 12, 1980 and Novembe'r 29, 1979, members of the NRC staff met with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD or licensee) in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss long-term upgrade requirements for the Rancho Seco AFW system. A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure (1) to this summary.
j BACKGROUND Subsequent to the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit No. 2 (TMI-2) on March 28, 1979, the Commission issued confirmatory shutdown Orders to the licensees of the Babcock & Wilcox operating plants requiring them to shutdown or r'emain shutdown until certain short-term requirements were completed and evaluated by the NRC staff. With regard to AFW, the Order issued to SMUD on May 7,1979 required that p ior to restart it must complete the specific actions identifi ed j
in Enclosure (1) of the licensee's letter of April 27, 1979.
Each of the id-entified itens were required to upgrade the timeliness and reliability of de-livery of water to the steam generators from the AFW system.
These items were completed and evaluated in a staff safety evaluation forwarded to the licensee on June 27, 1979.
The long-term portion of the Order required "The licensee will provide to the NRC staff a proposed schedule for implementation of identified design modifications which specifically relate to items 1 through 9 of Enclosure (1) to the licensee's letter of Arpril 27, 1979, and would improve safety." The licensee responsed to this item of the Order in its July 26, 1979 letter stating, "The District carefully reviewed AFW system operating procedures and verified that system design require-ments are satisfi ed. The system was modifi ed to improve both system flow i n-dication and actuation information in the control room. The District will continue to review the design of the AFW system and if additional analysis or system enhance-ments are required, they will be made."
In order to identify the portions or components of the AFW systems which required improvement, the.NRC staff directed the licensee to perform an AFW reliability analysis, and to submit this report to the NRC for review. A draft of this reliability analysis was submitted by the licensee on September 17, 1979.
. Following NRC staff review of the draft report, a meeting was held on November 29, 1979, with the licensee to discuss staff comments on the report and discuss the licensee's proposed system upgrades.
On December 17, 1979, the licensee submitted its final report entitled, Auxiliary Feedwater System Reliability Analysis for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1. to the licensee's letter of December 17th, addressed the licensee's proposed actions related to upgrading the Rancho Seco AFW system.
On February 12, 1980, the staff again met with the licensee to discuss our review of the final report as well as the items identified in to the' December 17,1979 letter.
DISCUSSION _
November 29, 1979:
The staff and licensee desired to combine all requirements associated with the AFW system into one central package. The principle sources which relate to AFW system upgrade requirements are:
(1) The long-term portion of the May 7 Order specifically related to improving AFW system timeliness and reliability; (2)
Improvement required as a result of the identification of dominant failure contributors.
Identification of these items is in the licensee's AFW reliability analysis ;
(3) Requirements associated with items 2.1.7a (Automatic Initiation of AFW) and 2.1.7b (AFW Flow Indication) of NUREG-0578 ("TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations") and, (4) Additional requirements applicable to most pressurized water reactors which were identified by the NRC staff during our review of the Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering operating plants AFW systems.
Enclosure (2) to this summary provides a list of specific items discussed at the meeting.
In addition, a sumary of recommended actions by the licensee is also included in Enclosure (2).
It was agreed at the meeting that the licensee would address its proposed course of action for each of the items identified as outstanding in Enclosure (2). These items would be addressed in the same letter which would forward the licensee's final report on AFW reliability. The final report was scheduled for submission in mid-December 1979.
February 12, 1980:
On December 17,1979, the licensee submitted the final AFW reliability report.
In addition, per our agreement during the November 29, 1979 meeting, SMUD addressed the outstanding items identified in Enclosure (2) to this meeting The licensees proposed action on the outstanding items was included summary.
as Attachment 2 to its December 17th letter.
3 i
6
. Th'e staff informed the licensee that we had completed our review of the final AFW reliability report as well as our review of the licensee's proposed actions for continued upgrade of the AFW system. We Stated that we would document the results of our review in a letter to the licensee shortly. However, certain items identified in Attachment 2 of the licensee's December 17, 1979 letter required additional discussion. The following items associated with Attachment 2 were discussed:
(1) The licensee indicated that it would implement the long-term requirments of items 2.1.7a and 2.1.7b during the 1981 refueling outage. The staff informed the licensee that we will require that the January 1,1981 date specified in NUREG-0578 be followed vice the 1981 refueling outage which is presently scheduled for the April /May 1981 time frame.
(2) The staff assured the licensee that, prior to restart from Rancho Seco's present refueling outage, we would define the testability requirements associated with the short-term requirements of items 2.1.7a and 2.1.7b of NUREG-0578.
These requirements should be implemented via procedure by the licensee prior to restart.
Since these requirements would only remain in force until the long-term requirements of 2.1.7a and 2.1.7b were completed, we would not require SMUD to submit a proposed Tech. Spec. to cover these surveillance tests.
(3) Although the licensee is prepared to modify the electric power supply for AFW pump P-319, such that upon loss of offsite power, the pump is automatically sequenced onto a diesel generator bus, we informed the licensee not to pro-ceed with that modification until the staff could review the results of Test Procedure 600-21.
The licensee indicated that during this test P-319 was started on a diesel generator bus after all four blocks of ECCS loads were started and running. A revi.ew of the test data indicated that the voltage and frequency requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.9 were not met. We requested that the licensee provide the results of this test for staff review along with any analyses performed that would demonstrate that automatic sequencing of this load onto a vital bus would not adversely affect the previous diesel generator performance and associated safety system actuations and functions.
(4)
In its letters dated September 17 and December 17, 1979, the licensee committed to alter the AFW system configuration to improve reliability associated with system testing. Thi.s modification would involve the replacement of manual valve FWS-055 with a motor-operated valve and a dhange in the test flow path.
We requested that prior to this modification, we would need a revised P&ID reflecting the final design configuration. In addition, we would desire con-firmation that the motor-operated valve position would be indicated in the con, trol room. Since this modification will require a change in the AFW flow test procedure, we will also require that the licensee commit to utilizing the existing surveillance procedure,until this modification is complete. The comitment will assure that an operator is stationed at the valve FWS-055 during pump surveillance testing until control of this valve from the control room is available.
(5) The staff informed the licensee that, prior to restart from the present refuelina outage, we will require that it review the emergency procedures to assure that they arc adequate for directing the operator how to establish alternate sources of water for the AFW system. They shorld. include the Folsum South Calial as well as the plant reservoir.
i
l o (6) Prior to restart from the present refueling outage, the licensee should perform an AFW system flow path verification. This test should demonstrate actual flew delivery from the condensate storage tank to the steam generators.
(7) We informed the licensee that we had reviewed the results of the AFW endurance test performed at Rancho Seco during June 1979; however, we still required some additional information regarding the conditions and the results of the test.
The licensee stated it would supply the requested information.
(8) We informed the licensee that although we had requested, during,our November 29, 1979 meeting, that periodic testing of AFW motor-operated valves be con-ducted on a monthly basis, we would accept the licensee's commitment to per-form these tests on a quarterly basis in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code.
(9)
Prior to restart from the present refueling outage, we requested that the licensee verify that its procedure A.51 adequately instructed the operator how to control AFW flow during loss of all ac power.
For the long-term we would require that the system design be modified to enable the control room operator to control AFW system operation and steam generator level from the control room for a period of two hours without dependence on ac power.
(9) Although discussed during our November 29, 1979 meeting, the licensee did not address in its December 17, 1979 letter, incorporating " low steam generator water level" as an AFW system initiating event. We informed the licensee that our followup letter, documenting the results of our AFW reliability analysis review, would request that this initiation signal be used in additon to the presently available signals.
(10) The staff informed the licensee that in addition to the AFW reliability review for Rancho Seco, the staff was also performing a review of the system using the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 10.4.9, " Auxiliary Feedwater System (PWR)," and associated Branch Technical Position 10-1, " Design Guidelines for Auxiliary Feedwater System Pump Drive and Power Supply Diversity for Pressurized Water Reactor Plants." The results of this review would most likely result in additional evaluation by the licensee regarding high energy pipe breaks.
CONCLU SION:
The staff stated that it would confirm the results of the staff review of the Rancho Seco AFW reliability study in a letter to the licensee. We stated that we would try to present our staff positions and any requests for additional infor-mation to the licensee by the end of February 1980.
TN$. (Q-Robert A. Capra, B&W Project Manager Standardization Branch Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As stated
~
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
ENCLOSURE (1)
ATTENDEES November 29, 1979 Sacramento Municipal Utility District:
S. Anderson NRC:
T. Novak (Deputy Director B&OTF)
P. Matthews (Section Leader, Systems Group B&OTF)
C. Liang (Systems Group, B&OTF)
J. Joyce (Systems Group, B&OTF)
D. Thatcher (Systems Group, B&OTF)
G. Mazetis (TMI-l Restart /B&OTF)
J. Wermi el (TMI-l Restart)
S. Newberry (TMI Support)
H. Walker (ACRS Staff)
February 12,1980 Sacramento Municipal Utility District:
S. Anderson NRC:
P. Matthews (Section Leader, Auxiliary Syrtems Br.)
D. Thatcher (Inst. & Cont. Systems Br.)
D. Garner (Rancho Seco PM, Oper. Rx. Br. !4)
R. Capra (B&W Project Manager, Stand. Br.)
e
ENCLOSURE (2)
SUMMARY
AND STATUS OF ITEMS DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE NRC STAFF AND SMUD OURING MEETING HELD ON NOVEMRFR 29, 1979 LICENSEE ACTION ZTEMS DISCUSSED REQUIRED REMARKS REQUIREMENTS FROM NUREG-0578 2.1.7a ( Automatic Initiation of AFW) Control-Grade _;
1.
Automatic initiation.
NO 2.
Single failure requirements.
N0 3.
Testability of signals and circuits.
YES Test frequency is not defined 4
Vital power supply for signals and circuits. N0 5.
Manual start capability.
NO 6.
Vital power for pumps and valves.
YES Pump P-319 not on vital bus 7.
Failure of auto start signals and circuits N0 will not result in failure of manual start.
2.1.7b (AFW Flow Indication) Control-Grade:
1.
Single failure requirements.
N0 2.
Testability of signals and circuits.
YES Test frequency is not defined 3.
Vital power supply for instrument channels. NO REQUIREMENTS FROM REVIEW OF AFW RELIABILITY ANALYSIS Commi tments from SMUO's 09/17/79 Letter:
Install control system separate from ICS.
YES Safety-grade design - staff review Install safety-grade AFW flow indication.
YES Same as long-term requirement of item 2.1.7b of NUREG-0578 staff review Alter system configuration to improve reli-YES Firm design has not been selected ability associated with system testing.
by SMUD - staff review Additional NRC Recommendations:
Procedures require that an operator be stationed YES Submit proposed Tech. Spec.
at FWS-055 during testing - put in Tech. Specs.
Te' sting of AFW flow control valves should be YES Submit proposed Tech. Spec.
conducted on a monthly basis.
Develop procedures to control AFW flow during YES Short-term: develop procedures loss of all ac power.
For the long-term, mod-Long-term : modify system design ify system design to allow control from the control room for a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
natumatic initiation of ArW snould include YES Licensee should commit to incor-automatic start of system on low level in poration of this auto start signal the OTSGs.
ENCLOSUP: (2)
SUMMARY
AND STATUS OF ITEMS DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE NRC STAFF AND SM HELD NOVEMBER 29, 1979 (CONTINUED)
LICENSEE ACTION ITEMS DISCUSSED REQUIRED REMARKS PWR G[NE,RJC_ RECOMMENDATIONS A_P_PLICABLE TO RANCHO SECO:
YES Review and modi fy sas necessary GS-4 nueruency proc edures fnr alternate water procedures to assure that they sources rur AlW pump suttion, cover both the Fcisum South Canal and plant reservoir.
YES Subnit proposed Tech. Spec.
GS-6 AFW system flow path verification (actual flow test from CST to OTSGs).
AS-1 Install redundant safety-grade CST 1evel YES Licensee should commit to install.
indication and low level alarms.
YES Submit results of endurance test AS-2 AFW pump endurance test.
performed in June 1979 for staff revi ew.
OUTSTANDING ITEMS FROM LONG-TERM REQUIREMENT OF MAY 7 ORDER (ASS No specific requirements from May 7 Order remain outstanding.
\\
1 j
' Sacramento Municipal Utility
!g'djdQ MUo s
~
District cc w/ enclosure (s):
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
David S. Kaplan, Secretary and Dian Grueuich, Eso California Energy tommission General Counsel 1111 Howe Avenue 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95825 P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Ms. Eleanor Schwartz California State Office Sacramento County 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Board of Supervisors 827 7th Street, Room 424 Washington, D.C.
20003 Sacramento, California 95814 Docketing and Service Section O m ce of ce Secre m Swiness and Municipel "7C' '"
U. S. Nuclear Regula ory Commission Sacemento Ci-ty-Count,-- M Washington, D.C.
2055o 3
SEe-+-S t reet.
. Sacramento,. Californie-S.314 Resident Inspec. tor P. O. Box 48 Director, Technical Assessment Fair Oaks, California 95628 Divisien Office of Radiation Programs Dr. Richard F. Cole U.
n ironmental Protection Agency 1
Crys 21 Mall #2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlinaton, V,rginia 20460 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Frederick J. Shen Region IX Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR Panel 215 Fremont Stre3t U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California 94111 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Eli:abeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Babcock & Wilcox Chairman, Atomic Safety and Nelear Power Generation Division Licensing Board Panel c ite a20, 7735 Old Georgetown Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission u
Lethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, DC 20555 James S. Reed, Esq.
Thomas Caxter, Eso.
Michael H. Remy, Esc.
Shaw, Pitt'an, Potts & Trowbridge Reed, Samuel & Remy 1800 !1 Street, I!W 717 K Street, Seite 405 lashington, D. C.
20030 Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Mr. Michael R. Eaton Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Energy Issues Coordinator Hill, Christopher and Phillips P. C.
Sierra Club Legislative Office 1107 9th St., Room 1020 1900 M St., NW Wasnington, D. C.
20036 Sacramento, CA 95814 Halen Hubbard P. O. Box 63 Sunol, California 94586
' Sacramento Municipal Utility District mrlh~)b-cc w/ enclosure (s):
D D
o Nd d.
bdju Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief. Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 a
?
4
., -.