ML19312D327
| ML19312D327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1980 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lyle H NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003240229 | |
| Download: ML19312D327 (2) | |
Text
_
pa ** Coq #o
,(
g UNITED STATES
?
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 k... e,o MAR 111980 Docket No.: 50-367 Mr. H. P. Lyle, Vice President
-Electric Production and Engineering Northern Indiana Public Service Company 5265 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46325
Dear Mr. Lyle:
SUBJECT:
MODIFICATIONS TO B0ILING WATER REACTOR CONTROL R00 DRIVE SYSTEMS -
i BAILLY NUCLEAR 1 Enclosed you will find a copy of our January 28, 1980 letter to General Electric which discusses the NRC staff's conclusions regarding proposed control rod drive (CRD) system modifications related to the elimination _of cracking in the CRD return line nozzle.
You will also find a copy of our February 11, 1980 letter to GE regarding additional analyses of boiloff rates and_CRD system makeup capability. This letter also responds to a GE-proposed draft procedure for optimizing CRD pump flow to the reactor Vessel.
-You should especially note our request that modifications not be performed until complete guidance has been issued in NUREG-0619. We anticipate issuing this document in its "For Comment" form in April 1980. For BWR applicants for construction permits or operating licenses and BWR applicants with construction permits, appropriate system modifications and supporting analyses should be incorporated in the final safety analysis report. Please i
acknowledge this request with a letter of commitment.
Sincerely,
/
C5 L. S. Rub'enstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch No. 4 Division of. Project Management
Enclosures:
As-stated cc: 'See next;page.
8003240'1 19.
N rthern Indiana Public Service Ccmpany CCs:
Paredith Hemphill, Jr.- Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Bethlehem Steel ~ Corporation
= 701 East Third Street '
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18016 Willian H. Eichhorn,.Esq.
Eichhorn,~ Morrow & Eichhorn
-5243~Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana.46320 Eduard W. Osann, Jr., Esq.
Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydid, Voit & Osann, Ltd.
Suite 4600 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 i
Robert -J. Vollen, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Porter County, Izaak Walton-League of America, Inc.
Box 438 Chesterton, Illinois 46304 Michael I. Swygert, Esq.
25 East Jackson Boulevard
- Chicago, Illinois 60604- -
Richard L.- Robbins, Esq.
Lake Michigan Federation' 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad
, ; 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W..
Washington, D. C.'20036 Dean Hansell, Esq.
RussellLEggert, Esq.:
Office _of.the Attorney General
- State of Illinois 188 W. -Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601
~ J. R.~Whitehouse, Superintendent
. National Park Service Route 2,' Box 139A' Chesterton, Indiana 46304 e
f
i A"* >.4'*,
UNITED STATES
[
(?
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
.)
wwowton. o. c. nomes
~
. January 28, 1980 Generic Technical Activity A-10 Mr. Richard Gridley, Manager Fuel and Services Licensing General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95215
Dear Mr. Gridley:
Since the initial discovery of cracking in boiling water reactor (BWR) control rod drive return Ifne (CRDRL) nozzles in early 1977, General Electric (GE) has proposed a number of solutions to the problem in the course of which several documents were submitted for NRC staff review.
~
These documents were as follows:
1.
Letter of March l4,1979, G. G. Sherwood (GE) to Y. Stello and R. Mattson (NRC) regarding calculation of CRD system return flow capacity; 2.
Letter of April 9,1979, G. G. Sherwood (GE) to V. Stello and R. Mattson (NRC) forwarding results of CRD system solenoid valve endurance testing;-
3.
Letter of May '1,1979, G. G. Sherwood (GE) to V. Stello and R. Mattson (NRC) forwarding results of CRD system solenoid valve performance testing; and 4.
Letter of November 2,1979. G. G. Sherwood (GE) to R. P. Snaider (NRC) forwarding additional inforsation as requested reghtding CRD hydraulic system performance, especially with regard to corrosion products emanating from caroon steel piping.
All concerned the GE rationale for the latest proposed system modification to prevent nozzle cracking; namely, total removal 'of the CRDRL and cutting and capping of the CRDRL nozzle. Previous submittals had presented the bases for the other modification proposals discussed herein.
g I
O k
/l[
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT h
Entire document previously
\\
entered i t s stem under:
i:
ANO V
N o. of pages:
h
,w ss'%,'o
. L UNITED STATES -
+
.: f Mr['g ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
! iJs -.
E1 W ASHING TO N, D. C. 20$55
%y' %:. y[;.?.
o vd 6..*
February ll, 1980 l.-
Generic TaskiNo.- A-10 ~
-Mr. Richard Gridley, Manager fuel f Services Licensing General -Electric Company
-175 Curtner Avenue
' San sicse, California-95125 '
Dear Mr. Gridley:
By letter dated t(ovember 27,L1979, you forwarded results of analyses of boil-cff rates and Control Rod Drive (CRD) System Pump makeup capability for plants'not'previously addressed in' earlier related submittals. The letter also included a draft procedure for optimizing CRD pump flow to the reactor vessel.
The fiovember 27, 1979 letter was.not included in the tiRC's Unresolved Safety Issue A-10 review an'd the analyzed classes of plants will.not be included in trJREG-0619, which resolves A-10 and-is tentatively scheduled for issuance-in "For Conrnent" form by February 29,-1980. However, we see no reason why licensees and applicants cannot use the results in the plant-specific analyses
'(and testing) required by NUREG-0619. Significantly more detail will be -------
. required -in their submittals, however, particularly with regard to the assump-tions utilized in derivation of the various flow rates.
LWe con:ur' that the. _GE-proposed procedure for optimization of CRD system flow to the pressure vessel provides a necessary first step toward reaching the desired. goal. However, in our-opinion it is too cumbersome with regard to.
tneasurement of Lpump discharge flow. When faced with the need to maintain water level upon. loss of other capable high pressure water injection systems, the operator simply cannot be burdened with the.need to refer to pump curves-or the need to consider what, if any, other portions of system flow are not included in a respanned f. low meter.
We believe that. operators should be provided one or two-meters capable of
. reliable. direct measurement of one and two pump flow; 5 peerely,
%$ldal s at 9
Darrell G.: isenhut, Acting Director
/
Division of* Operating Reactors,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~
u
' ch, g
m