ML20206B410
| ML20206B410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1987 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704090140 | |
| Download: ML20206B410 (10) | |
Text
-
Docket Nos.: 50-369, 50-370 and 50-413, 50-414 APR 0 21987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
B.. J. Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A, NRR FROM:
.Darl Hood, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 s
Division of PWR Licensing-A, NRR
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF MEETING REGARDING RTD BYPASS SYSTEM REMOVAL, MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS, UNITS 1 AND 2 DATE & TIME:
April 14,1987 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.rt.
LOCATION:
Phillips Building P-114 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 PURPOSE:
To discuss tentative requests for additional information regarding proposed removal of the RTD bypass manifold.-
PARTICIPANTS 1/: NRC DUKE POWER COMPANY C dones R. Quelette H. Balukjian S. Gewehr, et.al.
'F. Burrows D. Hood WESTINGHOUSE.
K. Jabbour, et.al.
W. Rice R. Tuley
\\6\\
Darl Hood, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page 1/
Most of this meeting involves proprietary information from a Westinghouse report (see agenda) and will be closed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790. An oral non-proprietary sumary at the conclusion of the closed portion will be provided upon request and a written non-proprietary summary will be issued by the NRC within 30 de of the meeting.
AI4 f-PWR#4/DPWR-A PWR#U j
-A DHood/ rad BJYot od
~
04/0//87 04/
/7 8704090140 870402 PDR ADOCK 05000369 p
Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station CC:
Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq.
Dr. John M. Barry Department of Environmental Health Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Mecklenburg County 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Commission Mr. Robert Gill Dobbs Building 430 North Salisbury Street Duke Power Company Nuclear Production Department Raleigh, North Carolina 2760?
P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Division of Facility Services Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Department of Human Resources and Reynolds 701 Barbour Drive 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 Washington, D. C.
20036 Senior Resident Inspector f
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 4, Box 529 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 L. L. Williams Area Manager, Mid-South Area ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corporation MNC West Tower - Bay 239 P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
A.V. Carr, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
422 South Church Street 3400 Sumner Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Libennan, Cook, Purcell Saluda River Electric Cooperative, and Reynolds Inc.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 929 Washington, D. C.
20036 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N 3100 Smoketree Ct.
York, South Carolina 29745 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, L.L. Williams 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Area Manager, Mid-South Area Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corp.
MNC West Tower - Bay 239 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse Karen E. Long York South Carolina 29745 Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
P.O. Box 629 Assistant Attorney General Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 S.C. Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Spence Perry, Esquire Columbia, South Carolina 29211 General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Room 840 100 Memorial Drive 500 C Street Greer, South Carolina 29651 Washington, D. C.
20472 Mr. Michael Hirsch Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the General Counsel Room 840 500 C Street, S.W.
l Washington, D. C.
20472 l
Brian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel l
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I J. W. McConnach P0CH Boston, Massachusetts 02109
, ENCLOSURE Meeting Agenda Regarding RTD Bypass System Removal:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following tentative requests for additional infomation which are based upon NRC staff review of the following references:
Reference 1:
Letter from H. B. Tucker Duke Power Comoany, to H. R. Denton, NRC, dated October 29, 1985,
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station -
Proposed Technical Specification Changes Relative to RTD Bypass Manifold Removal. Includes attached reports (proprietary and non-proprietary) by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, "RTD Bypass Elimination Licensing Report for McGuire Units i ant' F Reference 2:
Memorandum from Darl Hood, NRC, dated June 27,1985, "Sumt,y of May 2,1985 Meeting on Proposed Changes for Temperature Detection: McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2" I.
Provide the followirg additional infonnation regarding reference 1:
Recuest No.
Page No.(Section No.)
1 Cover letter Your cover letter of October 29,19E5, mentions current testing being conducted at McGuire to support conclusion of the Westinghouse report.
Proviue the results of this testing.
s, 2
4(1.2.2(a) to(c))
The existing cold leg RTD bypass penetration nozzle is to be modified to accept the RTD thennowell and a new penetration is to be made to each cold leg to accept an additional well-mounted narrow range RTD.
Indicate the relative locations of these two RTDs by a description which includes dimensions of their proximity to each other.
3 8(1.3.3)
For RTD failures, a spare RTD will be available in the cold leg.
You state that a failure of an RTD in the hot leg will require manual action to defeat the Titled signal and that a manual rescaling will be made of the electronics to average the remaining signals. What is the time interval to defeat the failed signal? What is the time interval to rescale the electronics to average the remaining signals? Describe the steos involved in this process.
4
..------.4 v- - - - - v
, ~,,, ~ - - -. -. - -
4 Recuest No.
Pace No.(Section No.)
4 10(2.1)
Westinghouse has perfomed RTD response time 4
, tests for the fast response RTD manufactured by the RdF Corporation in a' configuration modelling i
actual in-plant installations. The results 4
(Table 2.1) indicated a certain mean response time for the RTD, themowell, and scoop. Has this test been duplicated in the current McGuire tests?
If so, are the results the same.
Table 2.1 com-pares the obtained response time for the RdF RTD with the response time for the current system which uses Rosemount RTDs. Was the response time for the Rosemount RTDs obtai:isd from tests similar to those for the RdF RTDs? 1.hy is the RTD re-4 sponse time of the " fast res! onse RTD" slower than existing Rosemount RTD? Also, explain the reasons for the differences in RTD filter time constants in Table 2.1 for tt.e two systems.
Does this filter time difference relate to the temperature oscillation problem referred to in request II 3 below?
5 11(2.2)
For the three objectives for the streaming tests for McGuire Unit 1, only the first is clearly rtated. Where are tne other two objectives?
i 6
11(2.2)
The operator can review temperatures recorded prior to RTD failure in order to take further steps to correct the "two RTD" average to obtain the "three RTD" expected reading. How much time.
does this procedure take and how accurate is the new value?
L 7
12(2.2)
The McGuire Unit I tests are indicated to have provided information not obtained before on temperatures from the pipe interior, and this is indicated to have greatly strengthened the assumptions and inferences made with previous test data which investigated temperature gradients near-the pipe surface. What did the results show to reinforce the accuracy of the average temoer-ature of the hot leg? Provide these results.
8 12 & 13 You state that reactor coolant flow is verified (3.1) with a calorimetric measurement and that two of the most important parameters are the narrow range hot leg and the cold leg coolant temoer-atures as measured by the RTDs. The uncertainty of the proposed fast response RTD is given and is indicated to be somewhat higher than that of the RTD being replaced. How much higher is it?
'j A new flow measurement uncertainty analysis is needed for verification of the new values.
Provide results of this analysis for our review.
l
l il5 ' -
13*
I
_ i Recuest No.
Page No.(Section No.)
T 9
13(3.1)
A procedure is described for obtaining a more accurate temperature measurement in the calori-I metric flow reasurement procedure. Does this method require a standard temperature to measure against? -If so, what is this standard? Has'this procedure been demonstrated in an actual test?
,I You state that this method should give an overall flow measurement uncertainty about the same as the existing value of 1.7 percent flow (not in-cluding the 0.1 percent for feedwater venturi foulingallowance). This will require verifi-cation in a revises flow measurement analysis as per request 8 abov.:. Provide this analysis.
10 14(3.1)
In paragraph b, last sentence, what RTDs are l'
used? Does this irclude hot and cold legs?
2 11 15(3.2) i
~
A value is presented for the streaming temper-ature uncertainty from recent calculations for the thennowell RTD system in the hot leg. You state that the overall temperature streaming un-
}l certainty applied to the calorimetric is slightly higher than in previous analyses. How much higher is it? The temoerature measurement
- i uncertainty affects the flow measurement uncertainty. A new flow measurement analysis is i.
needed for verification as per request 8 above.
!i Provide the analysis for our review.
' t, t'
12 15(3.2)
The new method of measuring hot leg temperature i t with thermowell RTDs located in the three scoops is stated to be at least as effective as the j
existing RTD bypass system, even though the new l,
method measures temperature at only one point j;
within the thennowell. Discuss what data exists
!j to support the naximum inferred temperature gradient value presented, j
13 16(3.2)
The last paragraph states that test data have i
i been collected from McGuire Unit I to provide i
a plus or minus value for a bias to be applied if one of the three RTDs is out of service. How is the bias value determined for a particular i
out-of-service RTD since the temperature value of each RTD may differ depending on its circum-ferential position?
1 i
h
_4 Reouest No.
Page No.(Secticn No.)
i 14 17 & 18 The RTD response time of the new RdF RTDs as (4.1) compared to the currently used Rosemount RTDs is shown in Table 4.1 to differ. Because of the elimination of the RTD bypass piping and thermal lag and a change in the RTD electronic filter time constant, the total response times of both the existing and proposed systems are shown to be 10.0 seconds.
Explain why the value specified in Table 4.1 for the RTD electronic filter time con-stant was previously needed and why the specified value for the filter time constant in the new system can he used. Does this relate to the temperatu e uscillation problem referred to in request I! J below?
15 18(4.2)
You have provided the total uncertainty of the RTDs manufactured by the RdF Corporation and you state that the Rosemount RTDs have a different uncertainty. What is the total uncertainty of the Rosemount RTDs?
16 19(4.2)
You state that the results of system uncertainty calculations verify that sufficient allowance has been made in the reactor protection system wt-points to account for the increased RTD error for -
the new RdF RTDs as compared to the Rosemount RTDs.\\.
From this, you conclude that the current values of the nominal setpoints (given in Section 4.2 of Reference 1) as defined by the McGuire Technical.
Specifications remain valid. Provide the results of the uncertainty calculations and show how they verify that there is sufficient allowance in the reactor protection setpoints to account for the increased RTD teaperature error. Show what the RTD error is now and what it would be after the proposed design change.
17 19(4.2)
You state that "The Chapter 15 non-LOCA safety analyses were performed assuming that, at steady state full power, the average RCS temperature was equal to the nominal value plus 5.5*F for non-DNB events. For DNB events, at steady state full power, the average RCS temperature is assumed to be at its nominal value; the uncertainties are convoluted into the design limit DNBR value."
Explain the significance of the 5.5*F value and how it was obtained.
O e.--.-,-
1, r
t
( ;
Reauest No.
Page No.(Section No.)
h},
18 19 & 20 You state that the following RCS flow values are h
(4.2) used in the Chapter 15 Safety Analyses:
a 388,880 gom for DNB transients b
382,000 gpm for non-DNB transients c
377,000 gpm for loss-of-coolant accidents The 388,880 appears to be from the design flow (4 pumps x 97,220 gpm/ pump). Please indicate how the flows for (b) and (c) were determined. The value-for(b),382,000 gpm, appears to use the 1.8% flow wasurement accuracy and the value for (c), 377,00 gpm is approximately 97% of the design flow.
Although the flow measurement uncertainty is cur-rently stated to be 1.7% (not including the 0.1%
for feedwater venturi fouling), it could possibly be changed be:ause of the-increased inaccuracy of the new RdF RTDs. However, you state that for l
DNB events you have used a conservative flow measurement uncertainty of 2.2% (not including the 0.1%forfeedwaterfouling).
Is the difference betwem the 2.2% and 1.7% uncertainty for flow your main reason for stating that there is no need for reanalysis for DNS transients which employ the Improved Thermal Design Procedure?
19 20(4.2)
For the uncontrolled RCCA withdrawal from sub-critical condition, you state that "This event has been reanalyzed with a reactor coolant flow,
consistent with the full flow of 377,000 gom(only two reactor coolant pumps are assumed to be oper-ating)." For this assumption, shouldn't the flow be only about one-half of 377,000 gpm? Please explain.
20 23(4.2)
For the control rod ejection transient, you state that all the safety criteria are met including the criteria for peak clad temperature less than 2700*F.
Yours results tabulated in Table 4.2 appear to be close to the limit for hot standby at the end-of-i i
cycle with a value of 2690'F. Has a new flow l
measurement uncertainty resulting from the reduced accuracy of the RdF RTDs been accounted for in the reanalysis?
21 24(4.3)
Item 3 in the list of changes in the instrumentation and control of the RTDs states "The modification will include means to manually reject failed T signals.
Identification of failed signals will be gptthe same means as before the trodification, i.e., er.isting control board alarms and indications." Uher, there is m
~
i
-6~
t Reouest No.
Page No.(Section No.)
ll i
t an indication of a failure of one of the three RTDs
!l in a given loop, will it be corrected within a given g
period of time? If so, within what period? Is there N'
a Technical Specification regarding this? If two of j,
the three RTDs fail, what steps will be taken?
22 29-30(5.0)
You state "The need to modify control system set-I points will be determined during the plant startup following installation of the new RTD system by L
observing control system behavior." Are these changes expected to be small? Will they aff:ct the Technical Specification requirements?
,Y n.
23 9 2-5 In the proposed change in the Bases for TS 2.2.1 i
for Overtemperature4T, you refer to "thennel
]' '-
delays associated with RTDs mounted in thennwells (about5 seconds).d Is this value of 5 seccads i
to be checked by testing? Why does this value differ from the 5.5 seconds which you proposed to add to footnote (2) of TS Table 3.3-2 on TS page r
3/4 3-97 1.
II. Provide the following additional infonnation regarding reference 2:-
I j
Request No.
'i 1
It was noted that streaming tests were to be conducted during i}
the second half of 1985 and would provide plant-specific data on the nature and stability of the streaming patterns during tj, steady state and load change operations. Provide the results y
of these tests.
2 It was stated that a new calorimetric procedure developed by-i, Westinghouse will be used which reduces flow measurement un-
,i certainty because RTDs can measure temperature difference more ii accurately than absolute temperature. Explain the significance of this more fully.
i 1
3 The filter time constant is noted to have increased due to hot leg temperature oscillations experienced at McGuire Unit 2.
i Explain more fully the McGuire Unit 2 oscillations and how the i
oscillations are considered in the change in filter time con-stant for the fast response thennowell system. Are these oscillations expected with the proposed RTD system and what testing has been done in this regard?
l i
s l
7_'
fcs-} d
(
3
-MEETING NDTICE DISTRIBUTION 7
.(melu(Ft APR 0 21987 NRC Participants-
-NRC'PDR*'"'}
D. Hood L PDR F. Burrows-NSIC R. Jones PRC System H. Balukjian l
. PWR#4 Reading File K. Jabbour
'M..Duncan ORAS H. Denton J. Lyons T. Novak E..Rossi, AD/PWR-A R. Ballard, EB
-C. Berlinger..RSB C. McCracken,'PSB' F. Rosa, EICSB V.'Benaroya, F0B OGC-Bethesda J. Partlow B. Grimes
(~
E. Jordan ACRS(10)
OPA Receptionist (Buildingwheremtgisbeingheld) i bec: Licensee / Applicant & Service List i
I i