ML18094B445

From kanterella
Revision as of 11:13, 12 December 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 900404 Request Re Station Blackout.Licensee Presently Reconstituting Station Blackout Project Team in Order to Fully Assess Third Party Audit Findings & Establish Scope & Schedule for Rework Activities
ML18094B445
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 04/30/1990
From: CRIMMINS T M
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NLR-N90087, NUDOCS 9005070243
Download: ML18094B445 (6)


Text

t . Public Service Electric and Gas Company Thomas M. Crimmins, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4700 Vice President

-Nuclear Engineering APR 3 O 1990 NLR-N90087 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20005 Gentlemen:

STATION BLACKOUT SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS. 50-272, 50-311, AND 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) hereby forwards the attached information in response to the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Council (NUMARC) request dated January 4, 1990. An extension to the March 30, 1990, NUMARC submittal date was obtained after discussions with the Salem Generating Station NRC Project Manager on March 29, 1990. This extension was required to factor in findings made during the third party audit of the Salem and Hope Creek Station Blackout (SBO) reports. PSE&G retained the services of Devonrue, Ltd. and Bishop, Cook, Purcell, and Reynolds to perform that review. As a result, additional analysis and/or confirmatory review is required for both Stations.

Attachment 1 and 2 provides the NUMARC requested information and a summary of those areas and concerns which require further action for Salem and Hope Creek, respectively.

PSE&G is presently reconstituting its SBO project team in order to fully assess the third party audit findings and establish the scope and schedule for rework activities.

It is expected that a preliminary scope of work will be identified by April 30, 1990 and that a detailed schedule for completion of all activities will be established by June 30, 1990. PSE&G will provide the final schedule to the NRC at that time.

  • '. Document Control Desk NLR-N90087 2 Should you have any questions regarding the information in the Attachments, please feel free to contact us. Attachments c Mr. J. C. stone Licensing Project Manager -Salem Mr. C. Y. Shiraki Licensing Project Manager -Hope Creek Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 APR 3 o 1990

/ . ATTACHMENT 1 NUMARC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 The following responses pertain to the issues that were identified in the NUMARC January 4, 1990 letter for Salem Generating Station. 1. PSE&G has reviewed and can confirm that it utilized the methodology of NUMARC 87-00 for the preparation of the Salem station coping analysis with the following exceptions:

a. Site specific weather data was reviewed and analyzed for use in determining the coping category.

This analysis was applied to evaluate the Extreme Severe Weather (ESW) category for Salem. The site specific analysis allows Salem to justify an ESW category of 2 rather than 4. This analysis is well documented and available for review at the site. b. Loss of ventilation analyses used both NUMARC and non-NUMARC methods to arrive at final room temperatures following a loss of ventilation.

See the discussion of third party review findings for additional information.

c. A plant specific model was developed using the MAPP code to assess decay heat removal capability.

The output of the code was used to determine the amount of condensate required for the coping duration.

See the discussion of third party review findings for additional information.

2. PSE&G reviewed and verified the applicability of the NUMARC 87-00 Baseline Assumptions as part of the original coping assessment capability analysis.

The exceptions to the Baseline Assumptions are included in the discussion of third party review findings.

Details of this review are documented and available for review. 3. PSE&G has identified a target emergency diesel generator (EDG) reliability of 0.975 for Salem Units 1 and 2. There is presently a broad range of independent activities conducted to assure that EDG reliability is maintained at an acceptable level. These activities are consistent with PSE&G's present regulatory commitments and recommended manufacturer and industry practices.

This program includes transmission of reliability data to INPO for comparison with industry data. PSE&G is following NUMARC and NRC activities regarding resolution of Generic Issue B-56. Upon resolution of B-56, PSE&G will formalize the reliability program including the use of the EDG target reliability value.

ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.) NUMARC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 Third Party Review Findings:

Summary of Major Issues 1. Loss of Ventilation Analyses PSE&G used a combination of vendor specific analysis and NUMARC 87-00 methods to provide Dominant Area of Concern data. A review of this* combination is needed to assure a conservative result was obtained.

Any variations to data obtained in the original review will need to be compared to equipment operability standards.

2. Decay Heat Removal Capability
a. PSE&G's treatment of primary system leakage in the MAPP model requires review to determine whether a deviation from the NUMARC 87-00 assumed leakage value was taken. b. The plant specific model also requires review to evaluate the potential of nitrogen injection from the accumulators and its effect on natural circulation cooling capability.

This result will be factored into Salem's coping analysis.

c. The compressed air analysis takes credit for the non-blacked out unit's emergency control air compressor (ECAC) . The compressed air supply is needed to operate the atmospheric dump valves and the AFW flow control valve. Application of the single failure criterion invalidates this assumption.

This determination has resulted in a re-analysis that may require additional modifications to procedures and equipment to assure adequate coping duration.

3. Procedures
a. Additional procedure revisions are required to address issues such as AFW storage tank level sensing line freeze-up.

Appropriate guidance will. be provided to make the operator aware of this potential and to identify alternate sources of indication.

ATTACHMENT 2 NUMARC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE INFORMATION HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION The following responses pertain to the issues that were identified in the NUMARC January 4, 1990 letter for Hope Creek Generating Station. 1. PSE&G has reviewed and can confirm that it utilized the methodology of NUMARC 87-00 for the preparation of the Hope Creek station coping analysis with the following exceptions:

a. site specific weather data was reviewed and analyzed for use in determining the coping category.

This analysis was applied to evaluate the Extreme Severe Weather (ESW) category for Hope Creek. The site specific analysis allows Hope Creek to justify an ESW category of 2 rather than 4. This analysis is well documented and available for review at the site. b. Loss of ventilation analyses used both NUMARC 87-00 and non-NUMARC methods to arrive at final room temperatures following a loss of ventilation.

See the discussion of third party findings for additional information.

c. The results of a generic plant computer model (MAPP) were used to assess decay heat removal capability.

Plant specific design data will be incorporated into the model to assure the results are accurate.

See the discussion of third party findings for additional information.

2. PSE&G reviewed and verified the applicability of the NUMARC 87-00 Baseline Assumptions as part of the original coping assessment capability analysis.

The exceptions to the Baseline Assumptions are included in the discussion of third party review findings.

Details of this review are documented and available for review. 3. PSE&G has identified a target emergency diesel generator (EDG) reliability of 0.95 for Hope Creek. There is presently a broad range of independent activities conducted to assure that EDG reliability is maintained at an acceptable level. These activities are consistent with PSE&Gs present regulatory commitments and recommended manufacturer and industry practices.

This program includes transmission of reliability data to INPO for comparison with industry data. PSE&G is following NUMARC and NRC activities regarding resolution of Generic Issue B-56. Upon resolution of B-56, PSE&G will formalize the reliability program including the use of the EDG target reliability value.

.)t .. ,, ' ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont.) NUMARC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE INFORMATION HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION Third Party Review Findings:

summary of Major Issues 1. Loss of Ventilation Analyses PSE&G used a combination of vendor specific analysis and NUMARC 87-00 methods to provide Dominant Area of Concern data. A review of this combination is needed to assure a conservative result was obtained.

Any variations to data obtained in the original review will need to be compared to equipment operability standards.

2. Drywell and Suppression Pool Heat-up a. The computer model used for assessing drywell and suppression pool heat-up may not be accurate in certain areas, in that it utilized a General Electric Mark II containment and suppression pool in lieu of a Mark I containment and Torus. This analysis requires further review and justification as to its validity.
b. Condensate inventory calculations require re-review to determine that all React'or Coolant leakage losses are accounted for. Recirculation pump and Technical Specification limit losses may need to be refactored into the calculation. 3 . Procedures
a. An evaluation of drywell heating effects on vessel water level indication requires review. If necessary, procedural guidance will be developed to address alternate sources of indication in the event that reference leg flashing occurs.