ML20141H893

Discusses 970505 Meeting Conducted at Plant Re Extraction Steam Line Break That Occurred on 970421.Topics Discussed Included Overview of Event & Current Plant Status,Damage Assessment,Erosion/Corrosion self-assessment & CAs

ML20141H893
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/20/1997
From:	Howell A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Gambhir S OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 9705270158
Download: ML20141H893 (36)

Text

_..

m_..

p""%

UfelTED STATES

. / ;k

) 4$

NUCLEAR itEGULATORY COMMISSION

[.

REGloN IV ISh[#

611 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. SulTE 400 9

AR LINGToN, TE XAS 76011 8064 MAY 201997 S. K.' Gambhir, Division Manager Production Engineering Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

P.O. Box 399 Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort.Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0399

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC MEETING CONDUCTED ON MAY 5,1997

Dear Mr. Gambhir:

' This refers to the meeting conducted at the Fort Calhoun Station on May 5,1997. This meeting related to the extraction steam line break that occurred on April 21,1997.

Topics discussed included an overview of the event and current plant status, damage assessment, erosion / corrosion self assessment, and corrective actions.

i This meeting was beneficial in providing us a better understanding of the root cause of the event and your subsequent corrective actions, in accordance with' Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

l I

Sincerely, h

~

Arthur T. Howell 111, Director I

i Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-285 i

License No.: DPR-40

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List i

2. Licensee Presentation i

i ggg{$.\\fkh 9705270158 970520 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P

PDR u

..m_

.. _...~. _ _ -... _..

i Omaha.Public Power District l cc w/ enclosures:

James W. Tills, Manager

)

Nuclear Licensing Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

j P.O. Box 399 Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun

)

Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0399 l

James W. Chase, Manager Fort Calhoun Station P.O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Perry D. Robinson, Esq.

Winston & Strawn 1400 L. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 Chairman Washington County Board of Supervisors Blair, Nebraska 68008 Cheryl Rogers, LLRW Program Manager Environmental Protection Section Nebraska Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 l

l t..

. _...~. _ _,.___. _. -._ -_ _ _ _.

l

'l

's.

Omaha Public Power District MAY 2 01997

'I bec to DCD (!E45) i bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator DRS-PSB

' DRP Director MIS System

'I Branch Chief (DRP/B)

RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/B)

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

Resident inspector K. Perkins, Director, WCFO B. Henderson, PAO

. C. Hackney, RSLO 1

1 l

I i

i 4

To receive copy of document, indicate in boxi "C" = Copy withwt enclosures."E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy RIV:DRP/B -

C:DRP/B D:DRS$ff DNGraves;df

• WDJohnson*

ATHoWdth 5/ /97 5/ /97 Sfo /97 '

previously concurred.

OFFIClAL RECORD col'Y i

4 Omaha Public Power District MAY 2 01997 4

bec to DCD (IE45)

' bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator DRS-PSB DRP Director MIS System 3

Branch Chief (DRP/B)

RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/B)

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

Resident inspector K. Perkins, Director, WCFO B. Henderson, PAO C. Hackney, RSLO i

l l

i t

l l

l 1

I To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy RIV:DRP/B C:DRP/B D:DRSfff DNGraves;df

• WDJohnson

• ATHoWellg 5/ /97 5/ /97 5fo /97 "

previously concurred OFFIClAL RECORD COPY r

=

i ENCLOSURE 1 OPPD/NRC PUBLIC MEETING MAY 5,1997 ATTENDANCE LIST j

Extraction Steam Line Break, Root Cause Analysis, and Corrective Actions Name Omanization Position Title l

David Graves NRC-RIV Sr. Pioject Engineer Jeffrey Shackelford NRC-RIV SRA/ Team Leader Ken Brockman NRC-RIV Deputy Director, DRP Arthur Howell NRC-RIV Director, DRS Ellis Merschoff NRC-RIV Regional Administrator Clifford Clark NRC-RIV Reactor inspector Wayne Walker NRC-RIV Senior Resident inspector Vincent Gaddy NRC-RIV Resident inspector Hank Sterba OPPD Corp. Comm.

Stove Gebers OPPD Mgr., Radiation Protection Owen " Jay" Clayton OPPD Mgr., Emergency Planning Russ Spies ABB/CE ABB/CE Resident Site Mgr.

Dean Ross OPPD Corp. Comm.

Delores Jacobberger OPPD Corp. Comrn.

Mary Tesar OPPD Mgr., Conective Action Jospeh Gasper OPPD Mgr., Nuclear Projects Carl Stafford OPPD Principal Reactor Engineer Dave Herman Sts' dent James Tills OPPD Mgr., Nuclear Licensing Bob Lisowyj OPPD Principal Eng. Metallurgical Ralph Phelps OPPD Mgr., Station Engineering Sudesh Gambhir OPPD Div. Mgr., Eng. & Ops. Spt.

James Chase OPPD Plant Manager Gary Gates OPPD Vice President Jack Skiles OPPD Duane Booth OPPD Harry Faulhaber OPPD Mert Core OPPD Mark Ellis OPPD Clarence Brunnert OPPD Rich Clemens OPPD John Herman OPPD Gary Cavanaugh OPPD Bill Hansher OPPD Bill Potiec OPPD Judy Ploth OPPD Randy Lewis OPPD Dick Andrews OPPD l

i

1 2-Rich Jaworski OPPD Ron Short OPPD

~ David Spires OPPD Erick Matzke OPPD i

l 1

i i

i l

1 i

I l

I i

i 4

d

3 l

ENCLOSURE 2 1

1 N

4 w.y. _,-

^

.4.ar:.%. l 7.If5N.

(

t j

r

}

44 e

i OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT i

l Fort Calhoun Station l

Public Meeting on the j

Extraction Steam Line Rupture Event 4

May 5,1997 4

i i

}

s i

s'.

-i

-. -...mer.

l.

OPENING REMARKS l

INTRODUCTIONS i

Gary Gates i

i.7 l

2

)

i 1

l 4.

i i

i

l Agenda Opening Remarks / Introductions

• Gary Gates Overview of the Event and Current Plant Status Jim Chase Damage Assessment

• Ralph Phelps Erosion / Corrosion Self Assessment

+ Sudesh Gambhir Closing Remarks Gary Gates OVERVIEW OF THE EVENT Jim Chase

1 i

I

~ Steam Leak Sequence of Events l

April 21,1997 l

Time Description l

2022 Loud Noise in Turbine Building heard m Control Room.

I l

i N

l Y,

l

• 4 1

{

i l

1 l

l l

Sequence of Events i

l 2023 Large steam leak in Turbine Building l

identified by Shift Crew.

j Reactor promptly tripped and leak isolated.

l EOP-00," Standard Post Trip Actions" entered.

2024 Emergency Boration initiated.

2045 NOUE declared, " Increased Plant j

Management Awareness".

i i

i i

i l

i i

5

i Sequence of Events 2050 EOP-00 actions completed. All nuclear safety functions met.

EOP-01, " Uncomplicated Reactor Trip Recovery" entered.

AOP-32 entered for" Loss ofNon-Safety Related MCC-4C3".

' AOP-26 entered for " Loss of Power to Turbine Tuming i

Gear".

2052 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) activated.

j States and Counties notified of NOUE.

Sequence of Events 2210 Technical Support Center takes Command and Control 2345 NOUE terminated. ERO deactivated.

(4/22) 0220 EOP-01 actions completed and OP-3A,

" Normal Plant Cooldown", subsequently entered.

g i

)

i i

l

a l

Su~mmary of Major. Operator Actions

/ Plant Response-Primary.(nuclear) systems responded as designed to safely shutdown plant.

• No nuclear safety systems actuated, none were expected.

Secondary (non-nuclear) systems responded as designed with exception of equipment affected-by steam leak.

+ Loss of MCC-4C3 and Power to Turbine Turning Gear DC Bus #1 Ground

+ 480V Bus 1B4C Intermittent Ground

+ Low EHC Pump Pressure Summary of Major Operator Actions /

Plant Response-(cont.)

.lsolated activated portions of Fire Protection System in Turbine Building due to spraying on electrical equipment' concerns.

Overall, Operator and ERO response to event was. timely and conservative with respect to reactor safety.

i

,s

E

~

Current Plant Status Midloop Operations replacing 3B RCP seal Shutdown cooling operation i

Startup Plans l

Breakers closed 0100 5/11/97 i

i i

l 4

k 1

3 i

e i

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 4

Ralph Phelps i

I l,

t 4

h

i l

Pipe Break Event Recovery Actions Assessment of damages from the pipe break j

and recovery actions.

Pipe failure analysis, erosion / corrosion j

program assessment, root cause analysis, l

and corrective actions.

• covered later in the presentation 1

l

s l

-1 l

a.-

i_..

1 b

b i

4....

4

\\

f 1

gi g

y d.' / \\ L__JJL_

i s.,

]!

n

.].si w ww,%=;. <

-y g

A i

g,*

._ m 9' g-

.3 3

y

~

t ;

z i

I,.

55ih i L.=.. F N_

5

,in E i

N

i, I

CR 4

1 i

J

..r 1

4 p

.M7 ll

__ 1 I4 ee eI A.

.Il H

. s.'

3 4

a g

/

_ _^ %... _. s%

T i

l i

i 1

i L. _. _..

r _ _.,_ _ _ _

m l

l

)

4 i

l i

t lilli lilli lilll 111ll i

(1 i

4._

n_ b -.-

?.. N. _ _.

g.m

. t cyy-gy o O@

r

?ya.-x al

!t

=p=ye>

x a

A E

. i s

1 - ') _

Y I ~ ~-- I h

I i

{,,

-.-----a 6

,.,,,a.a.--r.--

.-,.- - --_w w

s---m_--w-a am mw_, m m an.e m es.a..rm -on aam m-m wm. -

Am a m ^

S I.

I i

1 r

i l

i I,

1

,-c\\,.

J l

si+.

'~

l 1

i l

I l

i i

1 r

t a

l l

- fi [

l' f:*.;

v i

+,

1 e

t i

l ti l

I t

i i

4 l

1

)

i l

l t

)

f e

)

l O

i l

, -...a 3p -

+M-:..>

l M& $

~

t 1

i one.

i M

~ e = w.......

I i

.o

\\

e.

.x 4

k l

{

4 1

1 1

1

)

l 1

Y

\\

m i

e.- %

g

,}

i P

el

$\\

s i

i l

.V

'%T,

W i

3 L

ti-s.

l l

\\

1 1

f

. Damage Assessment Scope Assessment teams Equipment repair / troubleshooting Safe reliable plant operation / personnel safety On-Going Actions

=

Continuing Walkdowns Trending Station Reliability Committee q

1 4

4 i

==

SELF-ASSESSMENTS L

and CORRECTIVE ACTIONS I

Sudesh Gambhir 4

i

(

1 l

i i

1 Overview Program History Fourth Stage Extraction Steam Piping i

Erosion / Corrosion Program Assessment Pipe Failure Analysis l:

Root Cause Analysis Corrective Actions l

)

PROGRAM HISTORY J

i I

\\

i i

A Program History Pre - 1987 Recognized need for Erosion Corrosion Program at FCS i

1987 Erosion Corrosion program initiated

+ Used EPRI report NP-3944 as a guide.

1988 Incorporated EPRI CHEC Computer model l

1988 Upgradedprogram procedures 1990 Developed programbasis document 1

• Dermes requirements, program objectives and responsibilities.

l 1993 Incorporated EPRI CHECMATE model i

1995-Converted to EPRI CHECWORKS model

f i

Inspection History i

Date

Inspections Replacements Basis' lphase/2 phase 4

1987 RFO [188 (79/109)

^ 18 I EPRI NP'-3944

- 1988 RFOI104 (57/47) ~

15 ~

IEPRI CH EC '

i 1990 RFO 125 (62/63)

'6 EPRI CH EC

~ ~ ~

EPRI CHEC~

.i 1992 RFO ~ISI (59/22)

~~.8 I

1993 RFO 799 (58/41)

~'

~ ~

?

4 EPRI CH ECMkTE ~

1995 RFO' !78 (45/33)

'8 ~

IEPRI CHECWORK,S '

1996 RFO ~~73 (35/38)

"4~

REPR'l CHECWORKS~^

'1997 F' O"

'I8"(3,/15/

~7 ~

! Expert Technical Panet 8

Totals 766 71 i

1 Selection based on engineering judgment, FCS and industry experience, and j

computer modelmg.

i 2 Inprogress.

Actual Wear Rate Trends Wear Rates: inched 10,000 hoors operstkxi TestSite System 1990

1992 1993 1995 l

D 193 Dram fnxnHtr5A 0.022 0.019 0.022 0.017 6 I94 Drain fiumlE55~~ ' ~5.049 II6~22~~

O'.d57 OA28 -

j

^ iraiif5mHir5B 15213

~ -~

4~~7Dii26 6 29 0019-0A2 l

6 258~ Drain fromiE6B 9.0i8~

i.023 0.026 0.023 S MS to Her 6A 0.015 0.012 0.012 0Alr/~~

j S-56 6th Stage Extract Stm 0.017 0.017 0.020 OA14

~~~ ~ $EgiExtrahiSE~0hi5 0.0i4 -~

0.0li~~~~'i.di4-6t

~

S-59 s.64 ~~6th Stage Extr'act Stri ~0.019 ~ ~d.020~~

7020- ~ 627~~

0 0.

i i

4

i Program History Observations The program has been evolving.

- Over 760 inspections and 71 replacements.

includes both I and 2 phase systems Inspection scope has been reduced over time.

)

due to modeling capabilities and increased experience j

Our reliance on EPRI models has increased.

Used primarily for ranking Wear rates for susceptible components have trended downward.

i FOURTH STAGE EXTRACTION' STEAM PIPING

^

1 l

nu::m---

Wtc-

,,w__

m:-

y-

\\

,mm n

,a

, N.

nt-

/

4

,m_

,..s,

+

n, w

/

,mm i

Ims.4.h. m m2-ty "'*N mm

~

e me, me,%

.N.

Q i

i m:-

-r-E l

1 s

.y: -

w-..

Fourth Stage Extract's Steam Piping Year ! Designation Description 1995 i Actual Predicted

! Wear Wear Rate l Rate 1 '

~

(example rank) !

1992 I S-20

~' '2* 90' eibow '!0.1 (6) i 4.4 1997 S-25 12" sweep 10.4 (3)

]20.0 1997:5-27 12" sweep

- 10.4 (3) j 13.5 j

I?07 ; S-28

~ 12" 90' elbow !13.8 (2)~ ~

I23 '~

1993'S-29 12*-10" Tee ]15.8 (1) ~ ~ l;43

~

1997 '5-29'A~~ ~~50 9 weep 16.2'T5) ~

3.5 1996'S-30

'10' 90' elbow ' 8.2 (4) 128.0

• Wear rates are in mils per year

a i

SELF-ASSESSMENTS /

1 CONCLUSIONS 4

Program Self-Assessment Objectives

- Understand the Root and Contributing Causes

- Perform Failure Analysis

- Identify any Programmatic or Generic Concerns

- Identify Corrective Actions

Program Self-Assessment i

OPPD's Concern

- Why did we not anticipate the failure?

Team Composition

- Both Industry and EPRI participation

- Program and Technical Expertise

- OPPD Management and SARC Representation i

l

' Program Self-Assessment CRITERIA USED NSAC 202L Revision.1 (November,1996)

" Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program" Industry Experience

1 i

Program Self-Assessment SCOPE Program Plan and Controlling Procedures Susceptibility Evaluation l

Plant Modeling Program Implementation l

1 l

Program Self-Assessment l

SCOPE (cont.)

l Communication between Departments Training and Qualification i

Continuing Improvements i

Equipment (UT) l Long Term Strategy to Reduce Plant Susceptibility i

4 1,

t l

i j

Program Self-Assessment CONCLUSIONS AND RESULTS l

t Eighteen Findings 2

7 Startup

• 11 Short and Long Term Thirty-one Recommendations Six Strengths i

1 3

Program Self-Assessment KEY ISSUES Past replacements not properly factored into the program.

i 4

Missed opportunity to prevent the failure by

)

not using industry experience (CHUG database).

i 4

4 i

l

i 4

Program Self-Assessment 1

CONCLUSIONS l

l Program should be revised to comprehensively-

. address susceptible piping.

Program should be revised to meet industry standards in the following areas:

Utilization ofindustry experience j

Inspection data evaluation 1

Use of analytical tools Use of systematic replacernents with resistant materials l

l J

u 1

Program Self-Assessment CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

Procedures should be revised to be comprehensive.

Major tasks and decisions should be adequately documented.

l l

l l

i l

4 i

PIPE FAILURE ANALYSIS I

1 Pipe Failure Analysis i

Failure analysis is being performed by two independent laboratories:

- FPIInternational

- ALTRAN 1

1

r Pipe Failure Analysis Preliminary Results - Failure Mechanism

- Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC).

j areas of smooth wear areas of pitting surrounding the rupture area area downstream of the rupture exhibited " tiger striped" i

appearance appearance of scalloped areas of wear the wear was concentrated in the extrados of the elbow FAC possibly aggravated by low oxygen content (< 7 ppb increases erosion corrosion) FCS has < 0.2 ppb in the steam -

system Pipe Failure Analysis

• Preliminary Results (cont.)

- Indications ofdroplet impingement 1

i

i i

e ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS i

i-Root Cause Over-reliance on elbow radius as a predictor -

of relative wear rate, with insufficient consideration of plant history and industry guidance.

i Contributing Causes Failure to include " sweep" elbows in the inspection program.

i Lack of a proceduralized methodology for selecting inspection sites.

Incomplete utilization ofplant history data (repair / replacement prior to 1988).

Incomplete utilization ofindustry experience resources.

Lack of specific guide-lines / goals / training on the comprehensiveness, updating and use of the model.

Lack of adequate management / supervisory oversight and independent knowledge assessment.

I A

i Corrective Actions Pre-Startup

- Inspect carbon steel large radius sweeps in extraction steam piping in 2nd,4th, and 6th stages.

- Verify that other fittings (90 degree elbows, tees, and reducers) have been recently (1990 to present) inspected.

- Upgrade the susceptibility evaluation.

Corrective Actions Pre-Startup (cont.)

- Review plant systems to ensure pipinh and components I

downstream of replaced components have been j

inspected.

i

- Resolve configuration control issue with S-56 (tee in 6th stage extraction steam).

- Locate / review any remaining packages from the 1996 RFO.

- Re-evaluate components displaying significant wear.

j I

l Corrective Actions

• Pre-Startup (cont.')

- Review high priority systems using expert technical panel and industry experience.

- (Feedwater, steam Dump and Bypass, Blowdown, Extraction steam, Condensate, Heater Drains) i

- Independently verify the adequacy ofinspection coverage for susceptible systems / lines.

- Perform additional inspections and replacements as needed.

4 8 8 e

Fsamin&Bonj LheCoorks Gomponent Fre gicta g usessa0 D LB bs Lemmenth Sim l

10 De auinton TNg inese TMckna ano swwe 5,w iwi 1 t..

Tc w ces see,

. 2 31 0 ira meued ru.e Extracion > 23 im&Lcz T-c w div sweep u 23i c 250 Accadea r4xie Steam

'm az toi ir. es q aweep U JU4 U 4U4 AccadeG P4)ne e

sw r*.me 17 W ceg sweep rc molaieG D J14 AcCooteG NDne 4m MsUm via 34w i.t 02 li A (lug satsep wafd ULM lHegected R 044ed pape - rudAe Sweep Estracteurt 54I MinUJ ic. W Geg sweep U 219 U 131 %ected Aixwe irwumum asi Dut Dekam our Steam accepimico critenu. rectace sweeti 5 45 3414 tG2 Tc - W day elbow g ioc U JJ3 At.cgfeG F4ane

>Z3A M2-tal 17 43 dug &meep D ZIl U 317 Acce meg P4me

>.'Wl5 330>V35 17 000. Defween de U dika m [d'4Fest

'~~

>J4 N(me 17 W OUQ Sweeg NiA MOdektG U 944 MAI4cleG jlie'Ow mWiemsdn meil reCiJce Sweep FMs rane 17 poo. Deeween de Nut moduaed

[0 ptgesa vn 4WU4 54J rase 1tr 43 aey esDom ru mounesc U its Majecte0 AfAndi meWMum whi M Delum cur Entractson acceptance cntens. replace elbow Steam 5 34 nearw31 ur poe u z3J._

u iur wectea tFeow mvannsn ussi-riiIico mps 3 34 MI-LU l 10 43 @DOW U 44D U 44T Acceplec NI4Jp (KIDem witrllow IracMets Wl es..e -.

5 34 30S5 Eg 3 15 43 Otig elbon r3 w g 340 Accepreg None htsdier Ji.4 tm)CStud G. W (.h:g bewup U 435 U.i_V MetAec Nurie 0,-

a 444 tw> tG 1 c'. 43 day n* esp U 247 U 441,Accepteo None 0 443 Nord U. w 00g Sweep Nut WMA31 sit]

U 237 6Accected FWallel tr4Wn comOCsierti to UUUJtG4 i.1243 r424 0. 45 caQ $ wee 0 rd)r modetec p zur Acc44ea varaned trarl Carnporerit to cutigtgi

}1W hune 17 a 17 Tee pu pdxWeg m progyess

>W

-se r p.pe -.re om o o.

me..

~,, o, - w ~. m e m.m

.se p.,. m aae,s w.e trean poes demaje caused ty tasterg riot FAC 16L wye

>i11 rune i ppe ooweguewri w rag modneed u 14 Acceptea ape med a nous o,.,.__

o,*e. m.

3.114 Nune r ppe OuheristrearM.

Pax mcondsuc 0 14 AccepteG Mfe 'epidCeG A 1W3

.re u. n Corrective Actions After Plant Restart

- Upgrade Program plan and Implementing procedures (prior to 1998 RFO).

• To be consistent wita NSAC 202L Rev.1

+ Revise data collection to meet industry standards.

• Develop detailed susceptibility documentation.

. Better define selection criteria.

- Conduct review and upgrade ofmodeling (prior to 1998 RFO).

i i

l Corrective Actions 1

1 3

J After Plata Restart (cont.)

- Improve incorporation ofindustry experience (prior to 1998 RFO).

- increased participation in industry groups (CHUG, Owners groups, etc.)

- make better use ofindustry data bases (CHUG).

- utilize industry peers to review scope (pre-outage) and results of inspections (post-outage).-

- Conduct additional inspections to develop PASS 2 models for CHECWORKS (starting with 1998 RFO).

l Corrective Actions After Plant Restart (cont.)

- Apply lessons leamed from the erosion corrosion assessment to other programs at FCS (in progress).

- Evaluate on-line radiography for small bore piping.

- Evaluate replacing high wear piping with wear resistant piping (Chrome-moly) (prior to 1998 RFO).

--._-...~-.-

..s>.

i Corrective Actions

^fter Plant Restart (cont.)

)

- Evaluate additional moisture traps on extraction j

steam piping to reduce wear (prior to 1998 RFO).

- Conduct another assessment of the erosion l

corrosion program (after the 1998 RFO).

- Provide erosion corrosion awareness training to selected System Engineers, Operators, Maintenance and Quality Control Personne}(prior to 1998 RFO).

I s

1 I

l Corrective Actions After Plant R.estart (cont.)

- Work with EPRI to share experiences with the industry (on-going).

- First set oflessons learned being pos'.ed on CHUG bulletin board

)

- Work with EPRI to improve modeling for large radius sweeps (on-going).

R

- Work with EPRI to better understand effects of oxygen concentration on secondary systems (on-going).

o,...

Sum. mary OPPD recognizes the areas to be strengthened in our rmgram.

S:artup corrective actions are aimed at correcting specific-problems relative to the extraction steam piping and the generic impact of weaknesses on the balance of the erosion corrosion program.

Lessons learned from this event and the program assessment will be applied to other programs at FCS.

The information from this event will be shared with the industry.

RM; CLOSING REMARKS Gary Gates