ML20207L536
| ML20207L536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1988 |
| From: | Morris K OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, LIC-88-903, NUDOCS 8810170341 | |
| Download: ML20207L536 (5) | |
Text
'
l
_A__
Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Omaha, Nebraska 68102 2247
^
October 10, 1988 LIC-88-903 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555 Feference:
1.
Docket No. 50-285 2.
NRC Bulletir 88-04 "Potential Safety-Related Pump Loss" dated May 5, 1988.
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) updtted response to NRC Bulletin 88-04, regarding potential safety-related pump loss.
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, e
K
. Morris D'ivision Manager 1
Nuclear Operations I
KJM/mc c:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator P. D. Milano, NRC Project Manager P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector i
8810170341 001010 PDR ADOCK 05000205
(!
O PNV I
I asia 4 iw gg.>,
.o
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District Docket No. 50 285 (Fort Calhcun Station Unit No. 1)
ArFIDAVIT K. J. Morris, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is the Division Manager - Nuclear 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 Generic Letter 88 05; 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, inf.rmation, and belief.
$?
I
. ft6rris D ision Manager Nuclear Operations STATE OF NEBRASKA)
)
ss COUNTY OF DOUGLAS)
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Nebraska on this to h day of October, 1988.
i
)
ammasener.e aeanse Mhh uJ UI" Notar,r Public w
ATTACHMENT NRC Bulletin 88-04 requests a written response regarding potential safety-l related pump loss.
The bulletin expresses concerns about simultaneous operation of safety-related pumps on minirecirculation flowpaths.
A preliminary response to this bulletin was provided with OPPD Letter LIC-88 579. An extension of 90 days was requested to complete calculations and obtain confirmations from pump manufacturers.
The following is a summary of the individual Bulletin items and the status of each:
NRC Bulletin Actions:
Item 1 - Deternine if piping configuration precludes pump-to pump during miniflow operation.
Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) Pumos Status:
No further action is required concerning the AFW pumps.
Each auxiliary feedwater pump has its own independent miniflow racir-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.
Sjtfaty iniection/ Containment Soray Pumos Status:
This item is ccmplete for all pumps.
Each safety injection and containment spray pump has its own indivi-d.al miniflow recircu;ation orifice, but the safety injection and containment spray pump l' recirculation lines tie together (downstream of the orifices) into a commor header prior to discharge into the safety injection / refueling wate, storage tank.
Item 2 - If Item I is applicable, evalt. ate the system for flow division.
auxiliary Feedwater Pumos Status: No further action is required.
This item is not applicable to the FW-6 and FW-10 auxiliary feedwater pumps, since no pump to pump interaction is possible.
Safety In.ipetion/ Containment Spray Pumni Status:
Not complete.
Calculations to determine actual line pressures for these pumps during simultaneous miniflow recirculation operation have been performed.
The calculations are being checked and reviewed, t
=_-
l ttachment (Continued) l l
The calculations will confirm if Fort Calhoun's design is adequate to preclude pump-to pump interaction during simultaneous miniflaw l
operation. An extension of 90 days is requested to complete the calculation review.
Item 3 - Evaluate the adequacy of tM miniflow recirculation lines.
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumos l
Status: No further action is required.
l The adequacy of the sizing of the FW-10 miniflow recirculation line has been confirmed with the pump manufacturer.
i Based on past operating and testing experience with FW-10, together with the manufacturer's confirmation of proper miniflow line capacity, it is concluded that the present miniflow recirculatior design for FW-10 is adequate to preclude pump damage.
No further action is required for FW 10, 6
A response from the FW 6 motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump manu-facturer has been rece'ved.
The manufacturer states that the actual miniflow flowrate (as measured during surveillance testing) is below the sizing of the manufactuer-su3 plied bypass orifice.
The manufac-l turer recommends investigating tie discrepancy between the design miniflow orifice capacity and the actual miniflow flowrate measured during surveillance testing. However, the manufacturer goes on to i
state:
"Our review and evaluation of the operating characteristics of this pump, the operating circumstances, piping arrangements, and P&ID's discussed in the telecons and the minimal mechanical difficulties t
encountered since initial start-up; indicate that the minimum recirculation flow system appears to be adequate as long as present i
operating parameters and conditions are followed."
i Although there is a discrepancy between the actual measured miniflow flowrate and the bypass line capacity, the manufacturar feels that the i
present system does not present a threat to pump operability, and no corrective actions are required.
The response to Bulletin 88 04 for the FW-6 pump 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 consider the manufacturer's recommendation of investigating the i
miniflow discrepancy described above.
Safety Iniection/CotJ Yinment Sorav Pumos Status: Awaiting manufacturer confirmation.
I 1
'dttachment(Continued) i Despite the fact that purchase orders were issued in August to obtain confirmation of the adequacy of the miniflow recirculation lines, OPPD 1
i still has not received responses from the two manufacturers of these pumps. OPPD has been in contect with these manufacturers to try and expedite their responses, informing them the information is needed to i
meet a commitment date for response to the NRC. However, the manufact-i urers maintain they still have numerous similar requests for responses pending from other utilities. OPPD feels further delays in obtaining these responses cannot be ruled out. At this time, it is Dat antici-i aated that manufacturer responses can be received and fully evaluated aefore October 7, 1988 (i.e., before 90 day extension expires).
OPPD I
will forward this information after it has been received and evaluated.
I Item 4 - Provide written response which summarizes problems, identifies correc-4 tive actions, provides schedule for implementation of corrective l
actions, and provides justification for centinued operation.
1 Status:
Incomplete, awaiting results of Item 2 and 3.
Based on surveillance test results, OPPD has no evidence of degra-dation of :ny of the pumps covered by the scope of the Bulletin.
No i
conditions have been identified which require modification of any hardware or plant procedures.
Thus, no list of corrective actions or i
schedule for implementation is necessary at this time. OPPD is l
evaluating the results of action Item 2 and Item 3.
Results will be 4
submitted as they becume available.
Summary:
i l
l In summary, to complete OPPD's response to this bulletin, the following must be completed:
Checking / review / evaluation of calculations for SI/CS pumps (two manufacturers), and evaluation of manufacturer responses.
An additional 90-day extension is requested for rull response to this bulletin.
i This will allow for (I) further delays in obtaining manufacturers response,
i (2) full evaluation of responses, '3) full evaluation of calculations, and (4)
]
if necessary, development of a response to bulletin Item 4 (corrective actions, implementation schedule, justification for continued operation) if the manufacturer responses or calculations identify any unanalyzed conditions.
i i
1 l
l 1,
i 4
_