ML20031F180

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Review & Evaluation of Util Steam Generator Repair Repts Should Carefully Consider Accidents Inside as Well as Outside Containment
ML20031F180
Person / Time
Site: Surry, Turkey Point, Idaho State University  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/25/1977
From:
NRC
To: Stello V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML13319A640 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-81-313 NUDOCS 8110190310
Download: ML20031F180 (7)
v • d • e


Text

'

"L

' w =-

l i

4

'I 3ctober 25, 1977 Note to Victor Stello, Jr., Director.

Division of Operating Reactors, NRR STEAM GENERATOR CHANGE 0VT I have skimmed briefly the Steam Generator and Repair Reports by Surry and Turkey Point.

I gave special attention to the descrip-tion of safety considerations involved in the repair activity.

It is interesting to note that Turkey Point considers only safety effects of possible accidents outside of containment, whereas Surry does not consider accidents outside of containment, but does, at least superficially, a&Jress a range of accidents (including fires) inside containmer.c. Our review and our subsequent evaluation should carefully consider accidents inside as well as outside of containment.

1.

Specifically, we ought to identify all shared systems which will La operational in the unit under repair. We should consider the consequences of damage to the portion of the system in the unit under repair which could result from any credible drop (including a drop of the steam generator bundle) onto the system.

We should consider the consequences of flooding of a portion of a shared system which could result from any credible drop onto a functioning water pipe inside containment.

2.

We should consider the impact on the walls or on any piping along the upper walls of containment which ca n result from swinging of a crane hook or swinging of the steam generator during the lift.

3.

With respect to any functioning electrical system inside containment of the unit under repair, we should consider whether there are any credible feedback mechanisms which coula affect the operating unit which could result from shorts or open circuits resulting from flooding or fire, etc.

s I1101 10 31CMMr7 P

A i

,( _

i 1-313 PDR w

w g

'::c Y~ kbh- - 2;

3..

~

page 2 e

i 4.

I would think with all of that welding and cutting going on inside containment on the unit under repair the fire protection program should be in place to prevent possible interaction with the operating unit.

(I think the main lesson from Brown's Ferry is that unexpected things can happen - let's eliminate expected little problems so we don't have to spend endless hours analyzing whether they can turn into big ones.)

5.

In addition to pipe cutting, if there is a significant amount of cable splicing in the repair program, we ought to evaluate the cable splicing criteria as we did in Brown's Ferry.

6.

The spent fuel pool (SFP) systens should,be " gold ' plated" per Brown's Ferry.

7.

Can the SFP take a full " ripping hot" core? It is my understanding that there will be little or no decay time in the pot before the fuel is transferred out to the pool.

8.

The outside problems seem to be somewhat easier to handle and Turkey Point does a reasonable, even though superficial, job. We ought to make sure that Surry does at least as well in its analysis of potential outside problems.

CC:

D. Eisenhut e

9 4

2- -.u_-

c-

.. -.:. w -

..= -.... - -

500.2.1 i

g TABLE of CONTENTS Page No.

1.0 General 1.1 Purpose 1.0-1 1.2 Reason For Action 1.0-1 l

1.3 Scope of Work 1.2-1 1.'. Schedule 1.2-1 1.5 Implementation Of Repair Program 1.4-1 1.6 Project Organization 1,4-1 l

L7 Quality Assurance Program 1.6-1 Steam Generator Components 1.7-1 1.8 2.0 Description Of Modified Steam Generators 2.1 General Description 2.0-1 2.2 All-Volatile Treatment Chemistry 2.1-1 2.3 Scope Of Modified Design 2.2-5 2.4 Design Improvements To Prevent And Inhibit Corrosion 2.3-2 2.5 Design Refinements To Improve Performance 2.4-3 2.6 Design Changes To Improve Maintenance And Reliability 2.5-1

2. 7 Design Bases 2.6-1 2.8 Engineering Details 2.8-1 2.9 ASME Code 2.9-1 3.0 Removal And Installation Of Steam Canerators 3.1 General' 3.0-1 3.2 Guidelines And Criteria 3.0-1 I

3.3 Preshutdown Activities 3.3-1 3.4 Postshutdown Activities 3.3-1

7. 5 Removal Activities 3.4-1 l

f i

~ = = = -..

- w. IM ' '

~. '

. -. * -. ~..............

~

i Fage No.

3.6 Inr.allation Activities 3.5-3 3.7 Post Installation Activities 3.6-1 3.8 Startup Activities 3.6-1 4.0 Safety Considerations 4.1 Inc ; duction 4.0-1 4.2 Comparison Of Modified Steam Generators

~

With Exiting Design 4.0-1 4.3 Accident Analyses 4.3-1 4.1 Safety Implicating Associated With Repair Activities 4.4-1 5.0 Environmental Activities 5.0-1 e

9 D

1 e

1 n..

.......L2-:_:.v&_ l ',,,, _

i 6

?

[

STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR REPORT TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1 1.1

SUMMARY

OF STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR l-1 EVALUATION PROGRAM 1.1.1 Containment Entry and Exit of 1-1 Steam Generator Lower Assemblies 1.1.2 Steam Generator Lower Assembly 1-1 Characteristics 1.1.3 Safety-Related Considerations 1-2 1.1.4 ALARA Considerations 1-2 1.1.5 Offsite Radiological Considerations 1-2 1.1.6 Unique Aspects of the Program 1-3 1.1.7 Steam Generator Disposal 1-3 1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AGENTS 1-3 AND CONTRACTORS 1.3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1-4' l.4 CONCLUSIONS 1-4 2.0 REPLACDENT COMPONENT DESIGN 2-1 2.1 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING COMPONF'.C DESIGN 2-1 2.1.1 Parametric Comparison 2-1 2-2 2.1.2 Physical Compatibility with Existing Steam Generators and Systems 2.1.3 ASME Code Application 2-2 l

2.1.4 Regulatory Guide Application 2-2 1

..-.. _.. ~ _ -I ~ iC. 7J ' "

1 SCRR Page 2.2 COMPONENT DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS 2-7 2.2.1 Design Refinements to Prevent and 2-7 Inhibit Corrosion 2.2.2 Design Refinements to Improve 2-10 Performance 2.2.3 Design Changes to Improve Maintenance 2-10 and Reliability 2.3 SHOP TESTS AND INSPECTIONS 2-11 3.0 COMPONENT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND PROCEDURES 3-1 3.1 PATHWAYS AND CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTIONS 3-2 3.1.1 Site Preparation 3-2 3.1.2 Containment Preparation 3-4 3.1.3 Transportation on the Site 3-5 3.1.4 Rigging Configuration 3-3 3.1.5 Rigging and Handling Controls 3-6 3.2 EQUIPMENT AND CONCRETE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 3-6 3.2.1 Mechanical Equipment 3-7 3.2.2 Instrumentation 3-7 3.2.3 Cable and Conduit 3-8 3.2.4 Piping 3-8 3.2.5 Concrete and Structural Steel 3-9 3.3 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION PROGRAM 3-10 3.3.1 Supplemental Access Control 3-10 3.3.2 Laund ry 3-11 3.3.3 Control of Airborne Radioactivity and 3-12 Surface Contamination i

3.3.4 Supplemental P: sonnel Monitoring 3-12 Requirements ii

-a w-m-

ww-

~

w w

w

,-mme

- C'

.l

.. ~.

... a?..

~

i SGRR Page 3.3.5 General ALARA Consideratiogg 3-13 l

3.3.6

!gscellaneous Wa ste Disposal 3-15 j

3.3.7 Man-Rem Ast osment 3-15 a

'3.4 DISPOSITION OF STEAM GENERATOR LOWER ASSEMBLIES 1-17 3.4.1 Objectives of Handling / Disposal 3-17 Operations 3.4.2 Onsite Storage 3-18 3.4.3 offsite Disposal 3-18 3.4.4 Man-Rem Assessment 3-20 3.4.5 Radioactive Releases and Dose 3-20 Assessment 3.4.6 Conclusions 3-22 3.5 PLANT SECURITY 3-22 3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE 3-22 3.7 REGULATORY GUIDE APPLICABILITY TO REPAIR 3-23 PROGRAM 4.C RETURN-TO-SERVICE TESTING 4-1 5.0 SAEETY EVALUATION

~

5-1 i

5.1 FSAREVALUATiONS 5-1 l

5.1.1 Introduction 5-1 5.1.2 Non-LOCA Accidents 5-1

~ ' '

5.1.3 Loss of Coolant Accident Evaluation 5-10

(

5.1.4 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 5-13 i

3 5.1.5 References 5-13 5.2 CONSTRUCTION RELATED EVALUATIONS 3-13 5

5.2.1 Handling of Heavy Objects 5-14 5.2.2 Radioactive Releases and Dose 5-21 Assessment t

?

i l

111 a

s a

,v--

a

,,-e.,.

,--p----

,,e,

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20031F180&oldid=4597915"