ML19310A190
| ML19310A190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1980 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goodwin C PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006060247 | |
| Download: ML19310A190 (7) | |
Text
754
$3 KIC
/
o, UNITED STATES y ^ ) e.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g /'
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
%,,,, +
May 14, 1980 Docket No. 50-344 Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Assistant Vice President Portland General Electric Company 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
In conducting our review of your responses to our October 3,1979 letter relating to NRC requirements for auxiliary feedwater systems as applied to the Trojan Nuclear Plant, we have determined that we will need the addi-tional information and a response to the staff positions identified in the enclosure to complete our review.
In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is requested within 45 days of your receipt of this letter. The open items identified in the enclosure must be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC staff before the Safety Evaluation Report related to this matter can be issued.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely, s
G~
R. A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information and Staff Positions cc w/ enclosure: See next page e
e e
,..-,.,,m
Mr. Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Portland General Electric Company cc: Mr. J. W. Durham, Esquire Robert M. Hurt, Chairman Vice President and Corporate Counsel Board of County Commissioners Portland General Electric Company Columbia County 121 S.W. Salmon Street St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Portland, Oregon 97204 Warren Hastings, Esquire Counsel for Portland General Electric Coccany 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Jack W. Lentsch, Manager Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Director, Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire Counsel for Oregon Energy Facility Siting Counsel and Oregon Department of Energy 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yanhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Michael Malmros, Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building, Room 111 i
Salem, Oregon 97310
Enclosura TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT AUXILIARY FEEDRATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS DOCKET NO. 50-344 A.
Short Term Recommendations 1.
Recommendation GS-2 The licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable.
l 2.
Recommendation GS-4 The licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable.
3.
Recommendation GS-5 The licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable.
4.
Recommendation GS-6 The. licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable.
5.
Recommendation GS-7 The licensee's response to this recommendation is currently under review.
We will provide the results of our review at a later date.
B.
Additional Short Term Recommendations 1.
The licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable. However, the licensee should verify that one of the condensate storage tank level indications and alarms will be powered from a battery backed bus.
-. ~
e-
-m
2-2.
The licensee indicates that the AFW pump / driver vendor strongly discourages performance of an endurance test.
It is our position that you perform an endurance test for each AFW pump prior to startup of Cycle 3 in accordance with the attached revised Additional Short Term Recommendation No. 2.
Note that the test requirement has been reduced from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
The licensee should commit to follow the provisions of the revised AFW pump endurance test requirements and submit the requested test information.
3.
The licensee's response to this recommendation is currently being evaluated a
by the Lessons Learned Implementation Task Force.
4.
The licensee's response to this reconnendation is acceptable.
C.
Long Term Recommendations 1.
Recommendation GL-2 The licensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable. Albo see Recommendation GL-4.
2.
Recommendation GL-3 The ifcensee's response to this recommendation is not complete. The licen-see should provide a description including the appropriate drawings of the modification to be performed to assure that the turbine driven AFW pump, its associated systems and flow path will automatically provide adequate I
auxiliary feedwater flow for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> during a loss of all ac power condition.
a e
a
. 3.
Recomendatien GL-4 The licensee's response to this recomendation is. acceptable. However, the licensee should verify that the low suction pressure trips for the AF4 pumps will be safety grade.
4.
Recomendation GL-5 See Recommendation GS-7 above.
5.
Recomendation - Addition of Motor-Driven AFW Pump The itcensee's response to this recommendation is acceptable. However, the licensee should provide us with copies of the revised AFW system drawings for the additional motor-driven pump.
6.
Recomendation - AF4 System Pipe Break The licensee's response to this recommendation is not acceptable.
It is our position that adequate protection be provided for the diesel-driven AF4 pump from postulated rupture of the turbine-driven AFW pump discharge piping located in the diesel-driven pump room.
In addition, the licensee should assure that-the new motor-driven AF4 pump train is separate from the existing AF4 pump trains inorder to assure that a break in the AF4 system (not associated with the motor-driven pump train) could not affect the motor-driven pump. In lieu of the above, the licensee can describe the means for achieving a safe shutdown condition by use of other available systems following such a postulated event.
D.
Basis for AF4 System Flow Reauirements_
The licensee indicates that a response to Enclosure 2 of our October 3,1979 letter concerning a request for infomation on AF4 system flow requirements will be provided. The licensee should provide this infomation as soon as possible.
Enclosure Revision to Recernmendation No. 2 of " Additional Short Term Reco=endations" P.egarding Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Endurance Test The licensee should perform an endurance test on all AFW system pu=ps. The i
test should continue for at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after achieving the following test conditions:
- Pump / driver operating at rated speed and
- Pump developing rated dis' charge pressure and flow or some higher pressure at a reduced flow but not exceeding the pump vendor's maximum pemitted discharge pressure value for a 43-hour test
. - For turbine drivers, steam temperature should be as close to nor:a1 operating steam temperature as practicable but in no case should the temperature be less than 400'F.
Following the 48-hour pump run, the pumps should be shut down and allowed to cool down until pu=p temperatures reduce to with[n 20*F of their values at the start of the 48-hour test and at least 8' hours. have elapsed.
Following the cool down, the pumps should be restarted and run fer one hour. Test acceptance criteria should include demonstrating that the pu=ps remain within design limits with respect to bearing / bearing oil tempera-tures and vibratics and that ambient pump room conditions (temperature, humidity) do not exceed environmental qualification limits for safety-related equipment in the room.
The Itcensee should provide a sumary of the conditions and results of the tests. The sumary should include the following: 1) A brief description of the test method (including flow schematic diagram) and how the test 1
3 2-wts instrumented (i.e., where and h:w bearing temperatures were measured)
I g-
- 2) A discussion of how the test conditions (pump flow, head, sp2ed and steam temperature) compare to design opera-ing conditions. 3) 110ts of haaring/ hearing oil temperature vs. time for each bearing of each AR pump / driver demonstrating that temperature desig, limits were not j
exceeded.
- 4) A plot of pump room ambient temperature and humidity vs.
time demonstrating that the pump room am6f ent conditions do not exceed environmental qualification limits for safety-r*1ated equir.ent in the room, 5) t A statement confirming that the pump vibration did not exceed allowable limits during tests.
\\
1
~
l 1
1 1
'\\
.m