ML20140F724

Summarizes Util Responses to RO Bulletin 74-14,re High Torus Water Temp Due to Extended Blowdown,Per Transfer of Lead Responsibility RO-C&O-74-13,Item 3 for Six Plants Which Deviate from GE Procedures

ML20140F724
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Hatch, Nine Mile Point, Cooper, Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, 05000000
Issue date:	02/04/1975
From:	Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20140F372	List: ML20140F369 ML20140F376 ML20140F485 ML20140F505 ML20140F512 ML20140F516 ML20140F522 ML20140F533 ML20140F546 ML20140F559 ML20140F580 ML20140F593 ML20140F603 ML20140F628 ML20140F657 ML20140F689 ML20140F695 ML20140F724 ML20140F750 ML20140F770 ML20140F788 ML20140F807 ML20140F950 ML20140F981 ML20140G002 ML20140G028 ML20140G069 ML20140G098 ML20140G110 ML20140G170 ML20140G175 ML20140G183 ML20140G188 ML20140G202 ML20140G215 ML20140G221 ML20140G226 ML20140G231 ML20140G236 ML20140G241 ML20140G253 ML20140G259 ML20140G264 ML20140G268 ML20140G274 ML20140G280 ML20140G286 ML20140G303 ML20140G325 ML20140G330 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 IEB-74-14, NUDOCS 8604010140
Download: ML20140F724 (2)

Text

,

A '

&g,4 UNITED. STATFS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisstON W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

[ [

/ [,

FEB 4 N ,'\

K D 1975

?

K. R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors

(\\' -

\

'. ~\

\

Division of Reactor Licensing #

77*

HIGH TORUS WATER TEf'PERATURE DUE 'TO EXTEtlDED BLOWDOWN - SUfetARY n f

0F RESPONSES TO R08 74-14 .'

//

This is a summary of the responses to R0 Bulletin 74-14 (copies enclosed) issued in accordance with Item 3 of Transfer of Lead .

Responsibility, R0-Ca0-74-13. The bulletin requested BWR licensees >

having suppression pools to review their operating procedures, which -,

are applicable to the problem, to detemine whether they are adequate 'f or should be modified. Many of the responses describe procedural Y

changes which adhere to the important features of GE's suggested l1- ,

interim operating procedures for limiting BWR suppression pool temper.atures. In addition, several of tne responses have blanket statements that procedural changes are being made to cover all of J' the areas of concern. Six of the responses, however, either deviate significantly frorrGE's suggested procedures or are silent with respect to certain'of the areas of concern. These, by plant name are:

1. . Pilgrim - This response states that the present procedures are adequate for extended steam discharge from stuck relief valve, but is silent regarding other events that lead to high suppression pool temperatures. 1

2. Millstone - Their procedures require a reactor scram at a pool temperature of 140 F instead of 110*F as suggested by the GE procedures.

3. Cooper - Their procedures permit operation with pool temperaturas of up to 120*F during HPCI, RCIC and RHR operation. They require plant shutdown, but no scram, above 120 F.

4. Nine Mile Point - Their procedures require a suppression pool temperature of 130 F instead of 110*F, and then only during unconti alled blowdown.

o#8%

epbs 3 g@h w8 %C 8604010140 PDR FDIA 860114 E S FIRESTDB5-665 PDR r

J . -

y5 1

,- S  !

FEB 4 1975 l K. R. Goller l

5. Hatch 1 - This r.esponse states that a reactor trip will be required at 110*F after the failure of a relief valve to reseat, but is silent regarding high temperatures durir.g other types of events.

6. Fitzpatrick - Their procedures allow pool temperatures of up to 130 F during RCIC, HPIC and relief valve operation.

A scram is required at 130*F during relief valve failure, tut is not regtrired for other events that lead to high pool temperatures.

It is apparent that the responses vary widely, both in the details concerning the actions to be taken to minimize the hazards resulting  :

from blowdown to suppression pools, and to the degree of adherence ,

to GE's recomended interim operating procedures. We understand l that GE is doing an individual evaluation of the problem for each i of these licenses, but we do not expect that these evaluations will be completed for a considerable time period. In view of this situation, we recommend that each facility be required to conform to GE's interim operating procedures until the specific evaluation for the facility is completed and that present Technical Specifications relating to suppression pen 1 temperature li ,it: M rs';isad 1:::rdir.;b .

y &.

', '! M cT Ll:. N h w /

B. W/Grier, Assistant Director for Construction and Operations .

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

Copies of all licensee responses to R0B 74-14 cc: E. G. Case, NRR G. W. Reinmuth, IE D. F. Knuth, IE J. H. Sniezek, IE A. Giambusso, RL H. D. Thornburg, IE F. Schroeder, TR J. P. O'Reilly, IE:I J. G. Davis, IE F. C. Moseley, IE:II R. C. DeYoung, RL J. G. Keppler, IE:II.I V. A. Moore, RL E. M. Howard, IE:IV l D. L. Ziemann, RL R. H. Engelken, IE:V

^

D. Elliott, RL ,

R. L. Tedesco, TR K. V. Seyfrit, IE -

T. Abell, MIPC l

l O