ML20136E977

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 851106 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Status of Hydrogen Control Program,Overview of Hydrogen Control Preliminary Analysis & Schedule for Staff Review of Analysis.Meeting Handouts & Attendees List Encl
ML20136E977
Person / Time
Site: Clinton Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/13/1985
From: Siegel B
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8511220001
Download: ML20136E977 (15)


Text

. a NOV 131985

. Docket No. 50-461 APPLICANT: Illinois Power Company FACILITY: Clinton Power Station

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY RELATED TO

-HYDR 0 GEN CONTROL A meeting between representatives of the Illinois Power Company (IP) and the NRC staff was held on November 6,1985, at the General Electric Office in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following:

The status of IP's hydrogen (H 9) control program; An overview of the Hp control reliminary analysis for Clinton Power Station; and Schedule for staff review of the preliminary analysis Enclosure 1 contains a copy of meeting attendees and Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the meeting handouts.

Following the meeting, the staff caucused and then informed IP that the staff would review the Hp control preliminary analyses on a schedule that would support a safety evaluation in Supplcment 6 to the SER (prior to fuel load).

The staff-reviewers (K. Parczewski, R. Sammons, H. Garg, and C. P. Tan) agreed to provide their SER inputs to the lead reviewer (A. Notafrancesco) by January 15, 1986 so the SER for Supplement 6 can be provided to the project manager by January 31, 1986.

Original Signed by Byron L. Siegel, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated

' DISTRIBUTION cc: See next page [DocketF11ei NRC'PDR Local PDR h2220ooj$h3 4 ADocg 61 PRC System

, p NSIC LB#2 Reading Goddard, OELD l WButler LB# LB#2/DL/BC J BSiegel BSi }b WButler EHylton 11/j/5 11/g2J85 -

l

g . .

2

/$ o g

o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ ;y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20553

\....+/ NOV 1 3 1985 Docket No. 50-461 APPLICANT: Illinois Power Company FACILITY: Clinton Power Station

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY RELATED TO HYDROGEN CONTROL A meeting between representatives of the Illinois Power Company (IP) and the NRC staff was held on November 6,1985, at the General Electric Office in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following:

The status of IP's hydrogen (H,) control program; An overview of the H 2 control preliminary analysis for Clinton Power Station; and Schedule for staff review of the preliminary analysis.

Enclosure 1 contains a copy of meeting attendees and Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the meeting handouts.

Following the meeting, the staff caucused and then informed IP that the staff would review the H7 control preliminary analyses on a schedule that would support a safety evaluation in Supplement 6 to the SER (prior to fuel load).

The staff reviewers (K. Parczewski, R. Sammons, H. Garg, and C. P. Tan) agreed to provide their SER inputs to the lead reviewer (A. Notaf rancesco) by January 15, 1986 so the SER for Supplement 6 can be provided to the project manager by January 31, 1986.

  • s j'i, ,

/ iW) .Y Byron L. Siegel, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page 1

Mr. Frank A. Spangenberg Clinton Power Station Illinois Power Company Unit 1 cc:

Mark Jason Jean Foy, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 511 W. Nevada Public Utilities Division Urbana, Illinois 61801 Office of the Attorney General State of Illinois Center Richard B. Hubbard 100 West Randolph Street - 12th Floor Vice President Chicago, Illinois -60601 Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K Mr. D. P. Hall San Jose, California 95125 Vice President Clinton Power Station P. O. Box 678 Clinton, Illinois, 61727 Mr. H. R. Victor Manager-Nuclear Station Engineering Dpt.

Clinton Power Station P. O. Box 678 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Sheldon Zabel, Esquire Schiff, Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606

' Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission RR 3, Box 229 A Clinton, Illinois 61727 Mr. R. C. Heider Project Manager Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 East Monroe Street .

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. L. Larson Project Manager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue, N/C 395 San Jose, California 95125 Regional Administrator, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i

Enclosure 1 MEETING Oh HYDROGEN CONTROL WITH ILLIN0IS POWER C0ftPANY NOVEMBER 6, 1985 NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION Kathy Ann Baker Supervisor I&E Interface Illinois Power Co.

Rita Saninons Reactor Engineer NRC/DSI/RSB Byron Siegel LPM NRR/DL/LB#2 Kris Parczewski S. Chemical Eng. NRR/DE/CHEB Chen Pang Tan Structural Engineer NRR/DE/SGEB Bob LaGrange Section Leader NRC/NRR/DE/EQB Hukam Garg Electrical Engineer NRR/DE/E0B Allen Notafrancesco Containment Systems Eng NRR/DSI/CSB Timothy A. Byam Staff Engineer Illinois Power Co.

John D. Richardson Consulting Engineer Enerion Services Steve Green Supervisor, Nuclear Fuel Illinois Power Co.

Frank A. Spangenberg Manager-Licensing & Safety Illinois Power Co.

l l

m

Enclosura 2 IPC/NRC MEETING ON H2 CONTROL PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 6, 1985 AGENDA

- o INTRODUCTION MEETING OBJECTIVES ,

IPC APPROACH ON PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS o HYDROGEN IGNITION SYSTEM DESIGN o ULTIMATE CAPACITY ANALYSIS o CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS 4

. o EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY o COMPARISON TO OTHER MARK III PLANTS 4

o FINAL ANALYSIS o

SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS i

MEETING OBJECTIVES o REVIEW THE STATUS OF IPC H2 CONTROL PROGRAM o PROVIDE THE NRC WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE CPS PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND IPC'S APPROACH TO MEET THE RULE

(

o OBTAIN AGREEMENT ON SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW o BRIEFLY DISCUSS FINAL ANALYSIS d

-- - .-.. . . - , - - m -

j i APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS o FORMAT, SCOPE AND DEPTH CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK III PLANTS 4

o RELY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ON THE LATEST INFORMATION FROM THE HCOG PROGRAM i

I o RELY UPON PREVIOUS MARK III EFFORTS AND CONDUCT ANALYSIS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK III PLANTS o COMPARISONS TO DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OTHER MARK IIIs WHERE APPLICABLE n

o PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PLANT SPECIFIC ANALYSIS IN THE MAJOR

{ AREAS TO SUPPORT ISSUANCE OF FULL POWER LICENSE o MINIM.IZE THE AMOUNT OF WORK WHICH MAY BE SUPERCEDED BY THE

, HCOG PROGRAM AND FINAL ANALYSIS i

l J

1

>g A g.i 5

1 CPS HYDROGEN IGNITER SYSTEM DESIGN o DESIGN CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH HCOG CRITERIA AND OTHER MARK III PLANTS FULL J: 2Y GRADE, SEISMIC CLASS IE o IGNITER ASSUMBLY IDENTICAL TO OTHER MARK III PLANTS GENERAL MOTORS AC DIVISION MODEL 7G GLOW PLUG 0.2 KVA DONGAN TRANSFORMER

- ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURED BY POWER SYSTEMS DIVISION OF MORRISON KNUDSEN o IGNITER LOCATIONS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK IIIs LOCATION CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH HCOG CRITERIA 30 FEET POWERED FROM DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND 60 FEET POWERED FROM SAME DIVISION IGNITERS POWERED FROM DIFFERENT DIVISIONS IN ENCLOSED AREAS 115 IGNITERS THROUGHOUT CONTAINMENT AND DRYWELL (WW-13, DW-11, CONTAINMENT-91).

o POWER PROM TWO CLASS 1E BUSSES WITH STANDBY DIESEL GENERATORS IGNITERS DIVIDED INTO TWELVE GROUPS, SIX GROUPS PER DIVISION i

EACH GROUP HAS ELECTRICAL PROTECTION DEVICES WITH NO MORE THAT 12 IGNITERS PER GROUP o MANUALLY ACTIVATED BY TWO CONTROL ROOM HANDSWITCHES o PROCEDURES FOR SYSTEM OPERATION PRIOR TO 5% DIRECTING THE OPERATOR TO ACTIVATE PRIOR TO REACTOR WATER LEVEL REACHING TOP OF ACTIVE FUEL o PREOPERATIONALTESTINGTOVERIgYPROPERSYSTEMFUNCTIONAND IGNITER TEMPERATURE ABOVE 1700 F o SURVEILLANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS IN CPS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS o SEISMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH IEEE 344 and IEEE 323/NUREG 0588 L

, ULTIMATE CAPACITY ANALYSIS o CONTAINMENT ULTIMATE CAPACITY ANALYSES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO NRC BY LETTERS DATED OCTOBER 16, 1981, MARCH 15, 1983 AND SEPTEMBER 27, 1984 o ULTIMATE POSITIVE CAPACITY OF 95 1 7.5 PSIG WITH LINER AS STRENGTH ELEMENT AND 75 i 5.5 PSIG WITHOUT LOWEST PENETRATION IS EQUIPMENT HATCH AT 63 PSIG o ULTIMATE NEGATIVE PRESSURE CAPACITY OF -11 PSIG 1

o DRYWELL ULTIMATE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY TRANSMITTED BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1984 1

o ULTIMATE CAPACITY (F DRYWELL PRESSURE RETAINING BOUNDARY

+63 PSID AND -61 PSID DRYWELL HEAD ULTIMATE PRESSURE CAPACITY +217 PSID AND

-86 PSID

+

1 I

i CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS o COMPLETED CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR BASE CASE SORV

. AND ALSO FOR DRYWELL BREAK oH RELEASE 2

HISTORY CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED HCOG POSITIONS

- BWRCHUC USED FOR HgRELEASE HISTORY 5000 GPM REFLOOD RATE CASE THROUGH RECOVERY r

AFTER RECOVERY 0.1 LB/SEC UNTIL 75% MWR j

BWRCHUC H g HISTORY SCALED FOR SMALLER CPS CORE o CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS USING CLASIX-3 -

ESSENTIALLY SAME MODEL AS OTHER MARK IIIs ASSUMPTIONS CONSISTENT WITH HC00 GENERIC ANALYSIS TO BE CONDUCTED ANALYSIS INCLUDES RPV HEAT LOADS, BYPASS LEAKAGE, AND NUREG 0588 HEAT TRANSFER ASSUMPTIONS FOUR VOLUME MODEL USED TO ALLOW FOR DRYWELL BYPASS IN j THE INTERMEDIATE VOLUME FOR DWB CASE DWB CASE MAAP USED FOR INITIAL BLOWDOWN MASS / ENERGY RELEASE AND FOR SRV/LOCA VENT SPLIT l

o CLASIX-3 RESULTS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK III PLANTS i

i i

f .'

i u

r-y ._,y .,-+,y m- , - ,.-. +-m- --------,r .-,y yy y , .- -- y,.,,-ge,. , + .w--<v.-,, -- ,w- w p,c y .w+- y-e-e-== . , -pey--

b I

Clinton Results Grand Gulf Results Perry Results - 1

. SORV DWB SORV DWB SORV DWB promber of Burns DW 0(0) 0(0) 0 0(1) 0 0(1)

WW 41(1) 36(1) 59 26(1) 32 30(8)

  • i IC 1(1) 0(1) - - - -
UC 1(1) 0(1) 1 0(1) 2 0(1) ital H2 Burned
  • DW 0(0) O(0) 0 0(104) 0 0(117)

(pounds) WW 1522(23) 1314(31) 1820 1233(319) 1220 1361(471)

IC 0(128) 0(185) - - - -

1 UC 0(269) 0(428) 512 0(587) 791 0(340) 112 Remaining DW 33(32) 50(43) 25 712(240) 15 692(203)

(pounds) WW 27(5) 36(8) 40 21(15) 293 151(41)

IC 146(17) 202(16) - - - -

) UC 314(43) 440(17) 207 629(114) 294 409(81)

Peak Temperature (OF) DW 198(190) 681(382) 193113M 296(707) 191[154]. 251(643)

WW 1221(866) 1769(1000) 1020[10201 1110(2295) 1762[13641 1201(1763)

IC 237(1129) 417(1251) - - - -

151(839) 192(1037) 192(587)

UC 6811197 ] 196( 860) 760[236]

. Peak Pressure (psig) DW 3.7(12.0) 14.4(27.0). 18.9[9.6 1 12.3(16.3) 15.9[10.71 13.8(17.3)

NW 6.6(22.4) 12.0(34.7) 23.519.01 11.9(31.6) 21.1(12.6] 12.2(19.4) 1 IC 4.3(22.6) 10.0(35.1) - - - -

UC 4.3(22.9) 8.5(35.4) 23.918.8l 11.7(32.1) 21.2[9.91 10.9(19.4)

The number at the left represents the value through the end of hydrogen release.

l The number in ( ) represents the effects of the forced burn after all hydrogen had been released.

The number in ( } represents the maxima due to wetwell burn.

I DW - Drywell

WW - Wetwell IC - Intermediate Compartment '

UC - Upper Containment ,

l i

i

EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS o EQUIPMENT SELECTION CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK III PLANTS o COMPONENTS REQUIRED TO SURVIVE VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER MARK III PLANTS o DEFLAGRATION ANALYSIS SHOWS EQUIPMENT SHOULD SURVIVE PEAK PRESSURES FOR HYDROGEN COMBUSTION o PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR IGNITER ASSEMBLY USING HEATING 6 AND CLASIX-3 TEMPERATURE ~

PROFILE ANALYZED FOR LIMITING WETWELL ENVIRONMENT MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MARK III PLANTS o BASED UPON PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, CPS EQUIPMENT SHOULD SURVIVE DEFLAGRATION BURNING o FINAL ANALYSIS WILL EVALUATE EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY TO 1/4 SCALE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT o SCOPING TESTS SHOW 1/4 SCALE ENVIRONMENT MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF HYDROGEN COMBUSTION THERMAL ENVIRONMENT FOR H2 RELEASE HISTORIES USED IN PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS o PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM 1/4 SCALE SCOPING TESTS SHOW THAT EQUIPMENT SHOULD SURVIVE DIFFUSION FLAME THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

IPC HYDROGEN IGNITER ASSEIMBLY THERMAL RESPONSE PROFILE 290 -

360 -

240 -

32C -  !)

300 - i t 180 -

180 -

140 -

120 - 4 100 i i i i i i i e i e i . . . i , , ,

2 4 8 8 10 12 14 18 18 20 22 (Thousands)

O TIME (SECONDS)

SOX SURFACE 4- TRANS FORM ER FIGURE 5.2-1 5-4

~

CPS CJMPARISON TO OTHER MARK III PLANTS o PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS COMPARES CPS TO GGNS ALSO VERY SIMILAR TO PNPP o IGNITER SYSTEM DESIGN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IPC HAS 25 MORE IGNITERS DUE TO LARGER VOLUMETIC SIZE WITH SAME LOCATION CRITERIA IPC HAS FEWER IGNITERS PER ELECTRICAL CIRCUT o IPS HAS HIGHER ULTIMATE CAPACITY CONTAIliMENT SHELL: 95 VS 67 LIMITING PENETRATION: 63 VS 56 o CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DESIGN ESSENTIALLY SAME BOTHREINF0gCEDCONCRETECONTAINMENTSDESIGNEDFOR 15PSIG, 185 F AND 3.0 PSID EXTERNAL PRESSURE CPS CONTAINMENT VOLUME LARGER WHILE MAJOR EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES VERY SIMILAR CONTAINMENT HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM DESIGN ESSENTIALLY SAME

- SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN COMBUSTIBLE GAS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN BUT HAS NO EFFECT ON ANALYSIS.AND CONCLUSIONS SUPPRESSION POOL MAKEUP SYSTEM ESSENTIALLY SAME o CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS USES DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS BUT RESPONSES SIMILAR IN MATERIAL RESPECTS KEY BUR!! CRITERIA ASSUMPTIONS IN CLASIX-3 THE SAME o EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY LIST SIMILAR o CPS EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS USES SIMILAR MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS AS GGNS BUT HAS HIGHER INPUT TEMPERATURE PROFILE DUE TO CHANGES IN CLASIX-3 ASSUMPTIONS RESULTING THERMAL RESPONSE SIMILAR AND CONCLUSIONS SAME

Q FINAL ANALYSIS o IPC ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HC00 PROGRAM o IPC TO CONDUCT REVIEW OF HCOG EFFORTS AND ASSURE CPS APPLICABILITY o IPC CONDUCT ANY PLANT SPECIFIC ANALYSES BEYOND HCOG PROGRAM AS DEEMED NECESSARY o SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY LETTER DATED JUNE 25, 1985 FINAL TASK COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 20, 1986 ANY EQUIPMENT ENHANCEMENTS PRIOR TO STARTUP FROM THE FIRST REFUELING OUTAGE 4

_ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _