ML19322C548
| ML19322C548 | |
| 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 8001170876 | |
| Download: ML19322C548 (3) | |
Text
a
[Ut E'/S, COCK & WILCOX COMPANY 7ori2 GENERATION GROUP *
[,,,.. -.;...
n.
y..
.. f.........
Q lDisiribution "j{-;:.0 /2li..._
p
- o-
.;, ; a _ ; :
J. T. Will s e, Licensing (2208)
.///
m.
Cust.
File he.
Toledo or Ref.T4. 2. 3 S u bj.
Date Loss of Pressurizer' Level Indication March e, 1979
- o.,_...................-.-...s..
Distribution:
R. L. Reed R. W. Winks IlOSMbb R. C.
Luken L. R. Cartin J. N 9,i d J. T. Janis E. A. Womack G. -T.
Fairburn D. Mars C. D. Russell J. O. Howard
>J. H. Taylor
.J.
D. Agar.
. F 1. R. Faist E. R. Kane
,h l '
A=
,N' meeting to discuss the loss.of pressurizer level indication" rat'.D3-1 was convened Februs.ry 14, 1979 a: the 35W offices 1
in Lynchburg.
Those is attendanne were:
J. E.<Kohler!
NRC Region III s
J. E. t Poster; NRC Region III.
D.EAnderson NRC/OIE/LCVIF Sushil Jain Toledo Edison J. F. Hilbish Metropolitan Edison R. A. Dierrich SMUD M. D. h'nire.
Arkansas J. T. Enos Arkansas E. R. Kane BGW R. C. Luken
- 5. H. Klein
_s
[f)LlD { W_ M F7]SiPi[q[]'
IF. R. Faist' h>
?B~. M. Dunn
'L.'R.
Cartin R. W. Winks l
J. T. Willse This _ meeting yas irequested by7the! Reg' ion [III inspectors.
The.
~
1
(
ipurpos'e cf this meeting was thought to be~to'. discuss'the;1oss; iof pressurizer,-leveljindication;on all 35W plants.
The utilities j
l were presen to discuss incidences where loss of level indication occurred at their plants.
.Mr 5Fosteriof.the NRC NpenEdithe deeting by.. stating th'at the,purpe'se-(cf. this meetingMwas'toldedlin a-timely mannersto reselve the lossinvestigate an alleg EGWEhad not respon
~ _
i l
- ha
'ci ~ pee s surizer ^1evel indic at.icn' concern "at D3-1.
He apolof :ed to the utilities for his me hod of requestinp. informatien from the=;
not realizing that the utilities wou3d feel compelled to send 8.0.01170 8 /g
o e
4.
s..
. f +, v r ve?'
.I.
^~^nw epresentativesmto this meeting, MrJ.. Fcsterin dtl.cskedJ hs utilitics; t
p:M esponddtolthen cuestionsche.hadusubmittedj(letter. attached).
g The e,uestions were:
(1)
What previous experience of loss of pressurizer level have occurred?
(2)
The facility where the event (s) were experienced.
(3)
The dates of occurrence.
(4)
Whether the NRC was informed of the event.
(5)
What evaluz ion of the event'was performed?
Duke Power and Florida Power did not send a representative to the nee ing because they have not experienced a loss of pressurizer level indication.
Mr. Hilbish stated that TMI fl,had not~ experienced any loss of
- l. pressurizer level indication. l*D(I!i2 Thad. two-such events ' _(.4/23/7 2
illR 's.; Both of these events were thoroughly evaluated.
Mr. Enos stated tha [ANO[1]had experienced 72itransientsiduring.
.which pressurizer leve1[ indication had.been: lo'sts ( Neitherz event:
!had be'en; officially reported?:o the NRC although theirsinspectors, f~werea tware ofiboth Jevents.
Both evenis were evaluated by 36W and~lhe ANO' safety _ core:ittee..,As a. result..of.those_ evaluations
,AND_ believes thatf1_o_ssi of pressurizer _ level; indication. is only?
erational':.inconvenienceiand that RC pressurizer is~suffidient was-op & M ~if the~ pressurizer has gone " dry ll.
m Wd b.
Mr. Dieterich acknowledged that[SMUDIhas had antroxi=ately 38 trips during which loss cf level indication occurred on(5 to 10 'of those transients. These events wereinotiefficially reportedito lhe NRC although their! inspectors yereLaivaretof ~the lossf of pressuri:er level indication. 15MUDealso.had experienc,ed two rapid cooldown t
~
? transients!during which pressurizer level indication wis l'ost, "th~ese tian'sients were evaluated and reported to the NRC.
m._
Mr. Jain described thejone..transientiwhere loss of level indication had occurred atiToledo.-
This transient was evaluated and reported to the NRC in an LER.
He further described the discussions that had occurred between Toledo, the NRC, and 35W.
The remainder of the morning was spent discussing the censequences of loss of level indication, the differences between DB-1 and the other 36W plants, and the dual level set point for the steam generator a: Toledo.
_.~
UMr.c Foster? closec. the morning, meeting by thanh.ng
.ne ut111:ses
~
'for't}ieiTcooneration. _ He Estated that as far?as he was: concerned; h ssuoflpress'uri:er'leveliindication was:merely,an operational'.'
level was(notla.
this issue be closed.;
' ~incor.v.enience;and' tha: the loss of pressurize
[sa fetyiconc ern.4 He was recommending that to all utilities in He agreed to send copies of his report
...endance.
<=-
(K.
(
- ~;."
M ' ;-[ ft l1, 5 l' / ( p/
- )
U M' dl gl d
1 t vj g d- >h ts a d u y; r C. j b Lh e6
3..................................
/
m--
Messrs. ?cster and Kohler spen: nes: cf the af ernoon reviewing the Tcledo ccrrespondence file pertaining to the overcooling tran-sient.
As a result cf this. review'..>.nd.the morning. discussions
,Hessrs 4 Foster and Kohler were: convinced that 36W had resconded in.
~
- u. manner. consistent with the magnitude, of the problem.
.Mr.;Festerj sun;aarized the days.neering by stating that he believed; JB&W;had'.been exonerated cf.the charge,that they had not responded
~in a timely manner, tha: the loss of pressurizer level indication was only an cpera-ional inconvenience, and tha: the loss of pressurizer level was no: a safety concern.
The only iten that remained open was a review of the D5-1 operating instructions to insure that Toledo was operating the plant in.;he manner prescribed by ESW.
Copies of Arkansas, SMUD and Met. Ed. v-itten responses to the NRC questions are attached.
~
JTWjEw Attachment i:
p:.=.=.=..
s G
9 l'
l i
t1 3
~. ~. -,
'f,
.t c;r
{
t
= :_#
lJ gj% V; m 3
e e
e 9
- 66