ML20205P778
| ML20205P778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1988 |
| From: | Morris K OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205P761 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, LIC-88-929, NUDOCS 8811080291 | |
| Download: ML20205P778 (5) | |
Text
.
~.
Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 402/536 4000 November 4, 1988 LIC-88-929 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
1.
Docket No. 50-285 2.
NRC Bulletin 88 04 "Potential Safety-Related Pump Loss" dated May 5, 1980.
3.
OPPD Letter (K. J. Morris) to NRC (Document Control Desk) dated July 8, 1988 (LIC 88-579)
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Updated Response to NRC Bulletin 88-04 Enclosed herewith is Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD) updated response to NRC Bulletin 88-04, regarding potential safetv-related pump loss.
The response to the Bulletin is not yet complete.
This submittal discusses 1) calculations for the Safety injection / Containment Spray Pumps, and 2) miniflow rate for Motor-driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump FW-6.
All major changes between this submittal and reference 3 are marked with a vertical line in the margin.
l Pursuant to the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response is submitted under oath and affirmation.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
,8 N,,
. Norris Division Manager Nucleu Operations KJM/mc c:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 R. 9. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator P. D. Milano, NRC Project Manager P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector M 11080291 C"31 104 F%
ADOCK 05000205 O
FDC n w4 e me..smm owmnm;
~a
=
UNITED STATES Oc AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Docket No. 50-285 (Fort Calhoun Statinn Unit No. 1)
AFFIDAVIT K. J. Morris, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is the Division Manner - NLclear Operations of the Omaha Public Power District; that as such he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the attached information concerning the updated response to NRC Bulletin 88 04; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
lh K[f. Ko'rris Divaton Hanager Nuclear Operations STATT.OFNE8RASKA)
)
ss COUNTY OF DOUGLAS) l 1
Subscribed and swor1 to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Nebraska on this
% % day of November, 1988.
l l
V j
suamususe.eusdeemde 1M O-Ahd
,7dO1 i
\\
Noh ry Public
~~
i I
i L
r
ATTACHMENT NRC Bulletin 88-04 requests a written response regarding potential safety-related pump loss. The bulletin expresses cencerns about simultaneous operation of safety-related pumps on mini-recirculation flowpaths.
t A preliminary response to this bulletin was provided with OPPD Letter LIC-88 579 (Referonce 3). An extension of 90 days was requested to complete calculations and obtain confirmations from pump manufacturers.
The following 1
is a summary of the individual bulletin items and the status of each:
i i
NRC Bulletin Actions:
[
Item 1 - Determine if piping configuration precludes pump-to-pump interaction during miniflow operation.
Auxiliary Feedwater_fAFW) Pumos f
Status: No further action is required concerning the AFW pumps.
Each auxiliary feedwater pump has its own independent mlniflow recir-culation line to the emergency feedwater storage tank.
Since there are two separate lines, there is no possibility of pump-to-pump interaction during simultaneous miniflow operation of FW 6 and FW 10.
i Safety In.iection/ Containment Soray Pumos l
Status:
This item is complete for all pumps.
Each safety injection and containment spray pump has its own indivi-i dual miniflow recirculation orifice, but the safety injection and containment spray pumps' recirculation lines tie together (downstream of the orifices) into a common header prior to discharge into the safety injectica/ refueling water storage tank.
Item 2 - If item 1 is applicable, evaluate the system for flow division.
Ayyiliary Feedwater Pumos Status:
No further action is required.
This item is not applicable to the FW 5 and FW-10 auxiliary feedwater pumps, since no pump-to-pump interaction is possible.
Safety In.iection/ Containment Soray Pumos Status:
Not complete.
Calculations to determine actual line pressures for these pumps during simultaneous miniflow recirculation operation have been performed.
The calculations are being cbcked and reviewed.
..7 Attachment (Continued)
Safety in.iection/ Containment Soray Pumos Status: Awaiting manufacturer confirmation.
OPPD is obtaining confirmation of the adequacy of the miniflow recirculation lines. OPPO believes further delays in providing a response to this item cannot be ruled out. The original 90 day extension has expirei, and manufacturers responses have not been finalized. OPPD will forward this information after it has been cvaluated and finalized.
l Item 4 - Provide writ +.en response which summarizes problen.s, identifies correc-
~i tive action:, provides schedule for implementation of corrective actions, and provides justification for continued operation.
Status:
Incomplete, awaiting results of Item 2 and 3.
l t
Based on surveillance test results, OPPD has r.o evidence of degra-dation of ?.ny of the pumps covered by the scope of ',he Bulletin. No conditions have been identified which require modi'ication of any i
J hardware or plant procedures. Thus, no list of corrective actions or i
schedule for implementation is necessary at this time. OPPD is evaluating the results of action Item 2 and Item 3.
Results will be submitted as they become available.
[
j Summary:
In summary, to complete OPPD's response te this bulletin, the following must be
[
completed:
Checking / review / evaluation of calt.ulations for SI/CS pumps (two manufacturers), and evaluation of manufacturer responses.
l A 90-day extension is necessary for an additional response to this bulletin.
i 3.
This will allow for (1) further delays in obtaining manufacturers responses, (2) full evaluation of responses, (3) full evaluation of calculations, and (4) if necessary, development of a response to bullet N item 4 (corrective actions, 4
implementation schedule, justs ication for continued operation).
[
1 l
4
)
l 3
l 1
i i
i i
i
{
f i
i 1
- ~ - -.
Attachment (Continued)
The calculations will confirm if Fort Calhoun's design is adequate to preclude pump-to-pump interaction during simultrneous miniflow operation. An extension of 90 days is necessary to complete the calculation review.
Item 3 - Evaluate the adequacy of the miniflow recirculation lines.
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumos Status: No further action is required.
The adequacy of the sizing of the FW 10 mlniflow recirculation line has been confirmed with the pump manufacturer.
Based on past operating and testing experience with FW-10, together with the msnufacturer's confirmation of proper miniflow line capacity, it is concluded that the present miniflow recirculation design for FW-10 is adequate to preclude pump damage.
No further action is required for FW-10.
A response from the FW 6 motor-driven auxiliary feed. tater pump manu-facturer has been received. The manufacturer states that the actual miniflow flowrate (as measured during surveillance testing) is below the sizing of the manufacturer-supplied bypass orifice.
The manufac-turer recommends trivestigating the discrepancy betwesn the design miniflow orifice capacity and the actual miniflow flowrate measured during surveillance testing.
However, the manufacturer goes on to state:
"Our review and evaluation of the operating characteristics of this pump, the operating circumstances, piping arrangements, and PalD's discussed in the telecons and the minimal mechanical diffie.ulties encountered since initial start up; indicate that the minimum recirculation flow syates appe:rs to be adequate as long as present operating parameters ed conditions are followed."
Although there is a discrepancy between the actual measured minifle flowrate and the bypass line capacity, the manufacturer believes t the present system does not present a threat to,, ump operability, no corrective actions are required.
The response to Bulletin 88 04 for pump FW-6 can be considered complete, since no pump to pump interaction can occur, and the existing miniflow system has been confirmed as adequate by the manu-facturer. No corrective actions (i e. procedure changes or system modifications) are deemed necessary to preclude pump damage. OPPD will investigate the miniflow discrepancy described above.
(