ML19322C303
| ML19322C303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane, Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Willse J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | Janis J, Luken R, Reed R BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001160826 | |
| Download: ML19322C303 (3) | |
Text
.
( THE st,5 COCK & Wil.COX COMPANY j
.p ot.d. e:. h,. r..,. : 10 N G POU P
- i......... e *.-. : o or s....
T c:......
_,1 :;A,, =/(* M.U Al.7._
Te, Dis:. Pibution j
se..
(1 4 :.;m
. v.
- mEs
^~"
j J. T. iWillse, Lic ensing (220S,)
///
n s. n..
Fi1e No.
Cuet.
~
Toledo or Ref.T4. 2.3 Date Su bj. Loss of ?ressurizer' Level Indication iMarch 9, 1979 l
m.
..w Distribution:
R. L. Reef R. W. Winks
~
L. R. Cartin R. C. Luken E. A. Womack J. T. Janis G. T. Fairburn D. Mars
.C.
D. Russell
~J. O. Howard (J. H. Taylor J. D. Agar
~,
E. R. Kane F. R..Faist t
A neeting to discuss the loss of pressurizer level indicarica at D3-1 was convened February 14, 1979 at the 36W offices in Lynchburg.
Those in attendanne were:
.f="
- J. _3 Kohler NRC Region _III.
s A
J. E. Foster NRC-Region III.
iD. Anderson NRC/OIE/LCVIP Sushil Jain Toledo Edison J. F. Hilbish M5tropolitan Edison R. A. Dietrich SMUD M. D. Whire.
Arkansas J. T. Enos Arkansas E. R.
Izne 36W r
R.
C.
Luken
- 5. H. Klein lF. R.-Faist i3.1M. Dunn L.
R. Car in R. W. Winks J. T. Willse This neering wasirecuested by the : Region III inspectors.
The
~
! purpose cf this meeting was though:1:o.be to discuss the-loss.
~
kof-pressurizer.. level indication on all 36W plants.
The utilities were presen to ciscuss incicences vnere 2 css c:. IcVel incica: en occurred 2: their plants.
- Mr..~.Fo. s ter - of the NRC op en ed th e de e tin g by. s t a t i.n g tha t the purpo'se
_ - c: ' nis 'mee ting < wa s cro,inve s:1p te an a12 ega::cn or an.h.RC inspect or
. = -
.;.,, m ' that 35W-had no: ~ responded in a ti iely canner to resolve the loss
~
ci pressurizer level indica ion concern a D3-1.
He apologi:ed to the u:ilities for his method of recuesting infor :: ion from them; no-reali-ing tha the utilities wcu3d feel :ompelled to send 60 hh Nb9 80011 t._-
x j
---.e._
. m e e-
representatives to this =ceting.
Mr. Foster ner: asked the utili, ies g5 %:a to respond to the cuestions he had sub=i::ed (letter a:: ached).
f N.......
2ne cuest: ens were:
~
[
(1)
What previous experience of loss of pressurizer level hcVe occurred?
(2)
The facility where the event (s) were experiencei-(J)
A he c.ates or occurrence.
(4)
Whether the NRC was infor=ed of the event.
(5)
What evaluation o.: the even:~.vas perfo.r=ed?
Duke Power.nd plorida power did not send a representative to the ce= ting eecause they have not erperienced a loss of pressurizer level indi ation.
Mr. Hilbish stated that TMI fl had not expe'rienced any loss or-pressurizer level indication.. SMI #2 had two such events (4/23/.78.5 11/7/78) both of which were reported to the NRC in LER's.
Both of these events were thoroughly evaluated.
Mr. Enos stated that ANO-1 had experienced 2 transients during
)
which pressurizer level indication had been lost.
Neither event had been officially reported to the NRC although their inspectors were aware of both events.
Both events were evaluated by 35W and the ANO safety committee.
As a result of those evaluations
/.NO believes that loss of pressurizer level indication is only o.'e=.
as operational inconvenience and that RC pressurizer is sufficient I
to determine if 'the pressuri er has gone " dry!'.
\\-
Mr. Dieterich acknowledged tha: SMUD has had approxinately 38 trips during wn cn loss or. level indication occurrec on a to 10 or.
- nose transients. These events'were not officially reported to the NRC although their inspectors were aware of the loss of pressurizer
. level indication.
SMUD also had erperienced two rapid cooldown transients during which pressurizer level incication was lost, these transients were evaluated and reported to the NRC.
Mr. Jain described the one transient where loss of level' ' indication had occurred at Toledo.
This transient was evaluated and reported to the NRC in an L3R.
He further described the discussions that had occurred between Toledo, the NRC, and 35W.
The remainder of the =crning was spent discussing the consequences of loss cf level indication, the differences between D3-1 and the other 36W plants, and the dual level se point for the stean generator at Toledo.
I Mr. Foster closed c the morningumeeting.by thanking the utilities I
for their cooneration.
He stated'that as far as he-was concerned sloss. of f press' rizer. level indication was: merely an operational
- u fincony.enience and.that the loss of-pressuri er level'was not a isafe:v concern.
He was reco=mendizag that this issue be closed.
eg'eed to send copies of his report to all utilities in He
- ++r..
attendance.
[:T. ".3 11 i. :r
'=5:-
............ 3......................'....
t ggg,*Me.ssri..r oster and Kohler spent most
(~;g the Toledo ccrrespondence file pertainincf the afternoon re
".c="
sient.
As a result
.'Mes s rs,.dFos' "t el and lK6hlerNere ;conv; inced ? th g to the it3 manner; consistentdvith th ons.
e magnitude of Lthe1 problem'. responded in'
- Mr;.dFos...terisu
?36W;had; been= m=ari..
in a timely manner,ated ofithe~ charge thatzed theMdaysKmee exoner Se b'lieved e
that pressurizer level was no' twas only an operational i,nconvenie resnonded ind' cation i
e, and re=nined open was a review of the DB 1a safety concern. that the loss o insure that Toledo was operating the plaoperating instructions to The only item that by 35W.
Copies of Arkansas, in the manner prescr.ibed nt questions are attached.SMUD and Met. Ed. written responses to the NRC Jn'/fy Attachmen:
I.
o w.
L s
=
e m
9 9
er W
9 8
e f!d@tP e
lP
. Lil _\\..i o
W ~ n. n.
O