ML20052F475
| ML20052F475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1982 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parris H TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205130055 | |
| Download: ML20052F475 (3) | |
Text
.
^
DISTRIBUTION Docket File APR 131987 LBH4 r/f DEisenhut/RPurple EAdensam CStahle MDuncan SHanauer RTedesco Docket !1os: 50-327/328 RVollmer JKramer RMattson e
g RHartfield, MPA Pr. H. G. Parris
. 0 ELD O
g/cYch fianager of Power OIE Tennessee Valley Authority bcc: LPDR 9
db' s
500A Chestnut Street, Tower II NRC PDR Q
.t7 2
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 NSIC/ TIC P
T
~I h
ACRS (16) 12
Dear ftr. Parris:
TERA Y
- 4 s
4 7
Sub. ject: Sumary Report on Hydrogen Control iteasures g,
On fiarch 30, 1982, we informed the Comission (Enclosure 1) that an additional four ronths delay in the Ice Condenser Owners Group hydrogen control R&D progran has occurred which will have the effect of delaying the completion of NRC evaluations on the adequacy of the hydrogen control systens by a corresponding arount of time. Our previous Comission status report gave April 1982 as an anticipated cocoletion date. We also stated in our latest report that we i
expect each licensee to assess the data fron their point of view on adequacy of their hydrogen control systems.
With regard to this assessment, we ask that you provide us within sixty days from the completion of R&D efforts a report whose purpose is to substantiate your position on the adequacy of the hydrogen control systen in compliance with the license condition. We have in mind an Executive Sumary Report of a few l
l pages and possibly sone attachments that are suitable for Commission and Senior Managenent reviews for our respective organizations.
It should reference and draw from the nany technical reports that you have produced on the efficacy of the igattor systems and from other available sources. The report should cover but not necessarily be limited to the following:
a.
Description of the issues and concerns that have been raised by l
consultants and other responsible organizations and your assessnent of their nerits.
b.
Final criteria and design basis utilized for your permanent systen and how each pertinent issue was factored into your design considerations.
c.
Applicability of the test data and analysis by the ' licensees and others for substantiating the adequacy of the ignition systems.
l l
l 8205130055 820413 CFflCE pQp AQQQg Q$QQQ3Q]
..uuun
.n.nunu
.n.n
..n u n ~.. ~.
..n
~. ~....... ~
... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
P PDR
- DunNAut, one)
MRC FORM 318 (1HO) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam --us-wa
e 1, Ms \\ 3{
(1 o
s tir
- n. G. Parris 2-d.
Reconwndation for any continued Rod efforts on Ilydrogen control neasures that should be carried out on a generic basis.
We welcouc your concents and suggestions on tne content of the report.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tecesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page I
l l
t I
1 i
W. JL + b r Mst/1k
..QL -../.4.......LAih.LgB..f.4...#.I,:;.g' 8g...
DL.....
i sunNaur >..CS le./.
.FGb n.......
....EAdense.
sco....
. 4/..kl.82.....
.41/2l#2.....
....41.[fl#2.....
..41/J.S.2......
g..
o4ra >
[
use ini-ww unc roau sta no-soi nncu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
r
~
SEQUOYAH Mr. H. G. Parris Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 cc: Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue E 118 33 Knoxville,. Tennessee 37902 Mr. H. N. Culver Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue, 249A HBB Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mr. Bob Faas Westinghouse Electric Corp.
P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr.- Mark Burzynski 27~
Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Chestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Mr. J. F. Cox Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue, W10C131C I
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident' Inspector /Sequoyah NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379
. Janes P. O'Reilly, Regional Ad' inistrator m
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 11 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 E
o
...c r-
5-p
~
~;
ENCLOSURE 1
DEP. 2 31931 pit!ORANDUll FOR:
Chairman Palladino Co:..missioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne
~
Comissioner Roberts FR0":
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations SUBJ ECT:
STATUS REPORT ON R50 PROGRAM FOR liYDROGEN CONTh0L AND C0143USTION FOR THE ICE CONDEi SER PLN4TS, SEQUDYAH, [4CGUIRE, D. C. CDOK This is to advise you of the status on the R6D hydrogen control program and its impact on the three operating ice condenser nuclear power facilities.-
TVA and its associates, Duke Power and AEP, are continuing their cooperative efforts on hycrogen control ceasures and the possible effects of hydrogen burns on safety funtions. The three utilities are contributing financially and technically to the R&R progra:n; however, each licensee has reserved the right to judge independently the ~r'esults of the R&D effort and the adequacy of their own installed cr proposed hydrogen nitigation systea for compliance with NRC requirements.
For this reason TVA, AEP and Duke Power are responding separately to this matter.
TVA now states that the R&D results to confirm the acequacy of the proposed pcmanent systerds) will be available in December 1901. This is approximately three nonths later than anticipatec at our last Comission discussion on Sequoyah Unit 2 in June 1981. This delay is due to the need in assimilating inforaation " '
froa nuuercus sources outside of the respective utility organizations. Complete infornation is not expected until December 1981 from the EPRI test program which includes igniter development, hydrogen ccabestion and mixing studies.
With respect to the survivability of equipment in the event of hydrogen burns, Duke Power states that all essential equipment would survive hydrogen burning and could be depended on to operate when hydrogen burning ceased. They consider their analysis to be based on conservative assumptions concerning geometry dnd heat transfer coefficients, and submit tnat it censiders all relevant forms of heat transfer in multi-diraensional configuration. hodified CLASIX coac results used in the analysis show less severe thereal environ:acnts than previously assuned wnich support their conclusion that safety equipment will survive hydrogen burns. The staf f's evaluation of equipment survivability 4
tt93 Lontact:
OS 5
~
Carl Str.ble, i42R 492-7317 cmen w w u n,..
wo
I ii.e comissioners.
uill be based on an assess.:.2nt of the adequacy of trie licensee's submittals.
Additionally, Sandia is perfoming analysis and testing of equipment in a hydrogen burn environment which will provide the staff with test results and an analytical method for confiming the staff's evaluation of '.ne licensee's analysis. This program is scheduled to be completed by mid 1933.
Due to the three-nonth licensee slippage, we anticipate conpleting our evaluations on tne adequacy of the information and the proposed or installed pernanent hydrogen mitigation systems in April 1982, instead of Jsnuary 1982, and will be prepared to brief you at that time. The icpact of this delay for the three ice condenser plants is as follows:
A.
Sequoyah Units The, Co:rnission approved def' erring installation 'of the proposed permanent hydrogen mitigation system in Unit 2 until first refueling (estimated 1tarch 1983) to avoid e lengthy forced outage. This was acceptable principally on th. basis that the installed interim systea is,very sinitar to the proposed final system in that it has the same functional capability; equivalent coverage by location, and diesel backup power.
TVA will also formally request delaying the installation of the final system for Unit I on the same basis as Unit 2. We believe that their request-will be equally valid for this unit.
~ No inforraation'lfas evolved which would cause the staff to request rescinding our earlier approval of the mitigation systems for interim use. The first refueling of Unit 1 is estimated for September 1982; therefore, no impact is expecteo froa the delay in the utility R&D progra for both units.
B.
D. C. Cook After extensive discussions, AEP voluntarily installed and placed in operation a hydrogen mitigation syste= that incorporates certain improvements with respect to scismic and electrical design features compared to the interim Sequoyah system. A status report on l
D. C. Cook was provided to you on June 22, 1981. AEP considers their l
currently installed system meets NRC requirements as they perceive then.
Additional requirements for this facility will be established, if necessary, consistent with the other ice condenser facilities.
l C.
licGui re Jn October 30, 1981, Duke Power submitted the results of their I
i 1
o m e, :.
" " - ~ ~ " -
m o w.s r
~"
~ " "
,,u y
.OFFICI AL RECORD COPY uzm n"-m o
, c < n t. a c,, em
(.ay
~
- '^~'
m
.a The Ccxnissioners.
investigations in whicn they state tne licensing conditions for the Installation of an adequate lydrogen niitigation systen by January 31, 1932 are. satisfico.
License condition changes have not been requested by Duke Power. The delays in the R&D program do have an impact on this plant because the staf f will not be able to judge the acequacy of tne systeu until well beyona the date the current license condition for Itcbuire, Unit 1 calls for UxC approval to be completea.
- ilowever, operation beyond January 31, 1982 is recommended oy the staff for essentially the same reasons stated for Sequoyah. Tne installed system is comparable to Sequoyah's with some of the improvements noted for D. C. Look. The impact of. the R&D celays is considered administrative in, nature; therefore, we recounend changing the McGuire license condition (not. requested by Duke Power) to require the installation of the permanent systeias to conform with the Sequojah, Unit 2 license condition, wnich requires installation by tne first ref uelin3 c
i n suua.a ry, the utilities plan to complete their R$D efforts and analyses by tne end of the calendar year and eacn licensee is responoin3, separately, to the adequacy of their respective hydrogen mitigation systeas. Our evaluations will be completed by April.1952, provioen the current licensee schedules are maintained and the liceni'e'es are Tully responsive to our neecs.
We, therefore,
~
propose to 14dity the license condition on Sequoyan 1 anc Mcuuire 1 to reflect the above consideration, i.e. the date that the Comaission must confirm that dn odeQuale hydrogen Control system for the plant is installed and Will perfonJ its intended function in a manner that provides cdequate safety nargins will be changed from January 31, 1962 to prior to startup following the first refueling outage for each unit.
Because these changes entail no significant hazards consideration, the staff would issue necessary amenor.ients with post n'otices.
because the McGuire case is currently before the appeal Board, a copy of this n:ehorandum as well as the subsequent license acend.aents and notice will be served upon the Board and parties.
(Senes William L Dircks.
l Utiliai. J. Dircks e
Executive Director for Operations l
1 k
J