ML16152A721
| ML16152A721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1988 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16152A722 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-59119, TAC-59120, TAC-59121, NUDOCS 8808050193 | |
| Download: ML16152A721 (5) | |
Text
pR REG4 0
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 26, 1988 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF BWOG GENERIC REPORT, "DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DSS AND AMSAC" (TACS 59119/59120/59121)
Re:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Enclosed is the staff's evaluation of the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) document 47-1159091-00, "Design Requirements for Diverse Scram System (DSS) and ATWS Mitigation System Actuation Circuitry (AMSAC)," prepared by Babcock and Wilcox for the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG) ATWS Committee. This BWOG generic report was submitted by letter dated October 9, 1985 (from J. Ted Enos, Chairman BWOG ATWS Committee to Hugh L. Thompson, NRC) pursuant to requirements specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, Section 10 CFR 50.62, "Requirements for Reduction of Risk From ATWS Events For Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."
The BWOG generic report provides the generic design basis for ATWS modifications of B&W type nuclear power plants required by 10 CFR 50.62. Subsequent to the generic report submittal, the staff met with members of the BWOG ATWS Standing Committee, on October 28, 1987 to discuss potential open items which were raised during the staff review of the generic report. Following this meeting, the BWOG submitted another set of responses to the remaining open items by letter dated December 1, 1987 from J. Ted Enos (BWOG) to Frank J. Miraglia (NRC).
Based on our review of the information provided in the BWOG generic report and the supplemental letter of December 1, 1987, the staff concludes that most sections of the generic report are acceptable for providing generic guidelines for plant-specific design submittals. However, some areas of the generic design are still of concern to the staff. Therefore, the staff has presented several design requirements in the attached safety evaluation report (SER) which should be followed by the utilities when considering their plant-specific DSS and AMSAC designs. Following are the areas of concern that plant-specific submittals must address.
The BWOG generic report is not acceptable where addressing the use of power supplies for DSS and AMSAC. In this regard, the staff suggests that special attention be given to the acceptable methods as presented in
>Smition 5.6 of the*SER 8808050193 880726 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P,-
Mr. H. B. Tucker
-2 o
The use of qualified isolation devices should also be addressed in detail in the plant-specific submittals. Whether diverse or existing isolators are used, the staff suggests that the utilities use Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the SER for guidance when addressing this issue in their submittals.
o The plant-specific submittals must provide detailed information which describe how a total loss of feedwater flow will be detected and why the measurements chosen are indicative of a total loss of feedwater flow.
Section 6.5 of the SER provides additional guidance that the plant-specific submittals should consider when addressing the input parameters which have been chosen to initiate DSS and/or AMSAC.
o Other areas of concern to the staff include: (1) bypasses and displays, and (2) surveillance and testing. Specific guidance for plant-specific submittals is presented in Sections 5.9 through 5.12 and 5.14 for "Bypasses and Displays" and Section 6.4 for "Surveillance and Testing" of the SER.
Design details such as physical and operational characteristics of those DSS and AMSAC components which are not addressed in either the BWOG generic report or the plant-specific submittals and may influence the staff's conclusions concerning compliance to requirements of the ATWS 50.62 "rule" will be reviewed and inspected on a plant-specific basis.
In summary, the staff requests that licensees of B&W designed nuclear power plants, who are part of the BWOG and are committed to the requirements specified in the ATWS 50.62 "rule" provide, no later than 90 working days from the date of receipt of this Safety Evaluation Report, plant-specific submittals which address these requirements and schedules for installation of the equipment.
With this acceptance of the proposed generic design, we would now expect each licensee to proceed with implementation of the ATWS modifications.
Should you have any questions concerning the matters discussed above or the content of the attached SER, please contact H. Pastis at 301-492-1497.
- Sncerely, avid B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page
Mr. H.
July 26, 1988 o
The use of qualified isolation devices should also be addressed in detail in the plant-specific submittals. Whether diverse or existing isolators are used, the staff suggests that the utilities use Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the SER for guidance when addressing this issue in their submittals.
o The plant-specific submittals must provide detailed information which describe how a total loss of feedwater flow will be detected and why the measurements chosen are indicative of a total loss of feedwater flow.
Section 6.5 of the SER provides additional guidance that the plant-specific submittals should consider when addressing the input parameters which have been chosen to initiate DSS and/or AMSAC.
o Other areas of concern to the staff include: (1) bypasses and displays, and (2) surveillance and testing. Specific guidance for plant-specific submittals is presented in Sections 5.9 through 5.12 and 5.14 for "Bypasses and Displays" and Section 6.4 for "Surveillance and Testing" of the SER.
Design details such as physical and operational characteristics of those DSS and AMSAC components which are not addressed in either the BWOG generic report or the plant-specific submittals and may influence the staff's conclusions concerning compliance to requirements of the ATWS 50.62 "rule" will be reviewed and inspected on a plant-specific basis.
In summary, the staff requests that licensees of B&W designed nuclear power plants, who are part of the BWOG and are committed to the requirements specified in the ATWS 50.62 "rule" provide, no later than 90 working days from the date of receipt of this Safety Evaluation Report, plant-specific submittals which address these requirements and schedules for installation of the equipment.
With this acceptance of the proposed generic design, we would now expect each licensee to proceed with implementation of the ATWS modifications.
Should you have any questions concerning the matters discussed above or the content of the attached SER, please contact H. Pastis at 301-492-1497.
Sincerely, Original signed by: Lawrence P. Crocker for David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File DMatthews PDII-3 Reading B. Grimes 9-A-2 NRC PDR MRood ACRS (10) H-1016 Local PDR HPastis S. Varga 14-E-4 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 ACRS (10) H-1016 G. Lainas 14-H-3 LA:A l-3 PM:P-DHI-3 D:PDII -3 MRo6 3
Pastis:pw k Matthews 7 /,/88 U
/G/88 U
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esq.
Mr. Paul Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
REFERENCES
- 1. Letter from J. Ted Enos, Chairman BWOG ATWS Committee, to Hugh L. Thompson, NRC, dated October 9, 1985.
- 2. Letter from J. Ted Enos, BWOG, to Frank J. Miraglia, NRC, dated December 1, 1987.