ML17298B115
| ML17298B115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1984 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407300145 | |
| Download: ML17298B115 (27) | |
Text
~0'acket-No's~.:
50-528/50-529 and 50-530 JVL1 S pg 0"
Applicant:
Arizona Public Service Company Facility:
Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3
Subject:
Summary of Appeal Meeting for Palo Verde Regarding Source Range Neutron Flux Monitor for Alternate Shutdown A meeting was held on May 31, 1984 in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives of the applicant.
The meeting was held at the applicant's request to appeal the staff's position that a source range neutron flux monitor be included as part of the alternate shutdown function so as to provide a capability to direct-ly monitor reactivity.
Enclosure 1 lists the meeting attendees, and the view-graphs used by the applicant are included as Enclosure 2.
The meeting is summarized as follows:
~Summa r Both the applicant and the staff summarized their positions regarding the need for a source range neutron flux monitor on the remote shutdown panel for Palo Verde.
The staff stated that Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the alterna-tive shutdown capability for a nuclear plant include provisions for direct readings of the process variables necessary to perform and control certain plant functions, including the reactivity control function.
To meet this requirement for a direct reading of the reactivity control function, the staff has required that a source range neutron flux monitor be provided as part of the alternative shutdown capability for PWRs..
The applicant stated that a source range neutron flux monitor is not necessary for the Palo Verde remote shutdown panel since, in the event that the control room needs to be evacuated, a criticality occurrence is very unlikely due to the following conditions:
(1)
Prior to leaving the control room area, the operator will assure that the control rods are in by tripping the breakers.
8407300l45'840719 PDR ADQCK 05000528 F
~
q I
4 r
~ 4 II
. j4)I
) jiI
I."b ji 4
4 ."bf Y f )
'r*
" I
)Iffy).'
4
,,)II 41
)') V ij) il I,'"
4,4 r,r),'; f
~ 'I I'fj~ )
'~ ') ')i)'f ~ 44
') ~
4))
4
)
4' 4,"(4i
'l 44II f ))'f'ff )
Xd P4)44) r'
+br+ 4.g J r,b'
'1)))C)
~
f'C'f'
-4(I)
", "'"'bl
)I"44r I r' Ib
'I 4 I,"
abr I
4
<<t.')I4>>;
)4 If~4") '>'fl)41 4"fi")"" 'l)b.f 4 ',4 4 I" g~
44( f 'IJI I IP)ff[))Jr ')Ii) r f$ [>>
r g 4 +4(+,
r'j4()
4 )
4
.4JI jb
)4 QJ, 0
4
)
f*,Ijl J1' I (f'$ i I '
" ')
4 4
4
)'
) " )
4"ff )'
)
)f') I 4
4' f
h
-roy>'
f )44 Ji,r
)
(r
+4(4 J
4 g I,,
4 f)4
~r'f Jb )
4 442 f I ~
g m~r4
)')') 14,
)
>4'rb JJ ffJ'l"
~ ) I 4 (
f 0 '4 f fr)rf f r44
=4
~4'I '4)
~ I I
Eb
" ( 4>r%b),f J)4J 4
)ff.),)ffi,'"i"
".?; '"l.,)
. ff).t.)
j4'f) f ) I')
") 4>f 4
~
r(14+'4)bi 4144)1'f)f I )'411'I '4)*~',JI
,, f., )4 4),'
'4,+)I ":,
0'"4,44') f )
4 Ii ',
f' 4")
I 4 hf 4(J)4If 6 ~ f (
") f')'l
))
)fan)). f(!)
4)'f"" ~))4 ff
=I)Ib bf f
') 4f,','b
)J,I
"")Jb J"
) 4')4<'f ')i) V b)f')< f.
f)f l)" -)" "
f'f
)f ";4'I
),r)
') )'
Or,,
)bff) )
f (J4
") f (
4 I'14)14JA 4 I) i
) 'i
)4,',
) )
- 'fI4 ')
4'4JI) 4 44,,",,)4, 4
4 4'I f~'4') "4
"'f 4)f
f+)ljf)r
(2)
The initial hot shutdown margin for Palo Verde (CESSAR System 80) with the control rods in is about 14%, which is about twice the margin for other typical PWR designs.
This negative reactivity worth is sufficient to maintain the core subcritical in hot shutdown even with unborated water in the reactor.
(3)
The operator will verify that makeup water to the reactor is from a borated source.
(4)
In the event of an inadvertant boron dilution (addition of unborated water to the core) and assuming a maximum cooldown rate of 60'F per hour, there still would be a shutdown margin of 4X nine hours after the start of the incident.
(5)
The operator will check the boron concentration in the reactor coolant by taking samples every hour starting at two hours after the control room is evacuated.
The applicant also stated that direct indication is being provided for all the other process variables (e.g.,
temperatures,
- pressure, flow rates and water levels) which can assist in determining whether a boron dilution event is occurring.
Also, all other requirements for the remote shutdown panel are being met.
Based on the above, the applicant concluded that there is no apparent problem with the current Palo Verde remote shutdown panel design and that there is little, if any, benefit to including a source range neutron flux monitor on the panel (the applicant estimated it would cost about
$500,000 per unit to install such a monitor).
To provide added confidence in support of this conclu-sion, the applicant offerred to perform a
PRA analysis on the issue.
Following the presentations, Mr. Novak, chairman for the appeal meeting, told the applicant that we would evaluate the information presented at the meeting.
He stated that as soon as a decision is reached on the appeal, the applicant would be informed of the result.
Enclosures:
(1)
Meeting Attendees 2)
Viewgraphs E. A. Licitra, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing DL:LB43f/'
3 MLicitra/ch G
s ghton 7/yP /84 7/I /84
tt )
I
~ 'I,'I 1
r II II '
'I WI s
Ws n
~
11 Isrh 11 t s)1 ~ I I
I lf Clvlt,h
) '
<<ll '11)
,'<<f 6 ',J" "))
.Ikh
'I I W, 'Wl l "vf l
~W)trh.l hlsvl I
P '1 1
P II 1
1
~t PVS) +
r>> ~
1 V b I
~
)1 ~ I l
'I
'"I[ V)I >>
I ) l s
Ws
)I t4
~
W
)
1 f')
W""W I')
I p g)MW ut s'
))I i
'uf
~ )hr "1
)
h>>" ')I',
) tt>>s)
'I
$ g s(W
')W):I 1
)
III I)
I h
)Is I
<<W,t s,ll I I
I-r J
()I I
~
II ) P'1st
~ 'l $
p",,II, Pulp It
))Wv ru p)
",)
)
'" )).
1 ')W)
~ )l~s)
)"
1
<rs 'I P.
)1
~
II V,) l
)
)
1 1 Il ')
1 1
I g W)t ls
1 I
) 'v'f ),I h'>>
1 I
1 f )gfs
)-)'-I)
)
p 1)p)r)
)>>
u+I h
I tu'W 1 tl' ll 1 1),v hh W
t1IW)
IV shl I
I
,) ',',
ll I's
>(
)
ss r
1 ) Ik) 1 I vP 1
1) h
'I S
II fJ IlI ~
fh) 1 Illl 1 ll I
II
)Wlf ~
~
P
's I'"t
~))
W=-
E f It
Enclosure 1
Palo Verde A
eal Meetin 3,
1994 Manny Licitra George Knighton Tom Novak Les Rubenstein Olan Parr Jerry Wermiel Nick Fioravante Terry Quan Edwin E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
W.
G. Bingham S.
H. Shepherd R. Steve McKinney Donald R. Woodlan Nick Baldasari Charles Luguan John,Connally George Davis Jeff Brown J.
M. Betancourt NRR/DL/LB¹3 NRR/DL/LB¹3 NRR/DL/AD NRR/DS I/AD NRR/DS I/ASB NRR/DSI/ASB NRR/DS I/ASB APS APS Bechtel Bechtel APS Texas Utilities Bechtel C-E C-E C-E C-E
M f k
I(
N 4 'l I
)
'('u1
'$>l
~
~
1 0
I II tl 0
'l p
'I
~
t, I
If f
~ f l~
~
~
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket No(s).
50-528/529/530 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB3 Reading
- Attorney, OELD GWKnighton Proiect Manager E. A. Licitra JLee NRC PARTICIPANTS M. Licitra G. Knighton T. Novak L. Rubenstein
- 0. Parr J.
Wermiel N. Fioravante bcc:
Applicant 8 Service List
'l
~8 REgg
~4
~o ca a
0 ca
~O
+R*W+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUL19 884 Docket Nos.:
50-528/50-529 and 50-530 Applicant:
Arizona Public Service Company Facility:
Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3
Subject:
Summary of Appeal Meeting for Palo Verde Regarding Source Range Neutron Flux Monitor for Alternate Shutdown A meeting was held on May 31, 1984 in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives of the applicant.
The meeting was held at the applicant's request to appeal the staff's position that a source range neutron flux monitor be included as part of the alternate shutdown function so as to provide a capability to direct-ly monitor reactivity.
Enclosure 1 lists the meeting attendees, and the view-graphs used by the applicant are included as Enclosure 2.
The meeting is summarized as follows:
~Suma r Both the applicant and the staff summarized their positions regarding the need for a source range neutron flux monitor on the remote shutdown panel for Pal o Verde.
The staff stated that Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the alterna-tive shutdown capability for a nuclear plant include provisions for direct readings of the process variables necessary to perform and control certain plant functions, including the reactivity control function.
To meet this requirement for a direct reading of the reactivity control function, the staff has required that a source range neutron flux monitor be provided as part of the alternative shutdown capability for PWRs.
The applicant stated that a source range neutron flux monitor is not necessary for the Palo Verde remote shutdown panel
- since, in the event that the control room needs to be evacuated, a criticality occurrence is very unlikely due to the following conditions:
(1)
Prior to leaving the control room area, the operator will assure that the control rods are in by tripping the breakers.
(2)
The initial hot shutdown margin for Palo Verde (CESSAR System 80) with the control rods in is about 14%, which is about twice the margin for other typical PWR designs.
This negative reactivity worth is sufficient=to maintain the core subcritical,in hot shutdown even with unborated water in the reactor.
(3)
The operator will verify that makeup water to the reactor is from a borated source.
(4)
In the event of an inadvertant boron dilution (addition of unborated water to the core) and assuming a maximum cooldown rate of 60'F per hour, there still would be a shutdown margin of 4X nine hours after the start of the incident.
(5)
The operator will check the boron concentration in the reactor coolant by taking samples every hour starting at two hours after the control room is evacuated.
The applicant also stated that direct indication is being provided for all the other process variables (e.g.,
temperatures,
- pressure, flow rates and water levels) which can assist in determining whether a boron dilution event is occurring.
Also, all other requirements for the remote shutdown panel are being met.
Based on the above, the applicant concluded that there is no apparent problem with the current Palo Verde remote shutdown panel design and that there is little, if any, benefit to including a source range neutron flux monitor on the panel (the applicant estimated it would cost'bout
$500,000 per unit to install such a monitor).
To provide added confidence in support of this conclu-sion, the applicant offerred to perform a PRA analysis on the issue.
Following the presentations, Mr. Novak, chairman for the appeal meeting, told the applicant that we would evaluate the information presented at the meeting.
He stated that as soon as a decision is reached on the appeal, the applicant would be informed of the result.
Enclosures:
(I)
Meeting Attendees (2)
Viewgraphs Eg E. A. Lsc>tra, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing
Palo Verde Mr. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 A~thur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. James M. Flenner, Chief Counsel Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 West, Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq. Assistant Counsel James A. Boeletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, California 91770 Ms. Margaret Walker Deputy Director of Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Rand L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident Inspector Palo Verde/NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 21324 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Regional Administrator - Region V
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.
Winston
& Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Ms. Jill Morrison 522 E. Colgate Tempi, Arizona 85238
Enclosure 1
Pal o Verde A
eal Meetin Ma 31, 1984 Manny Licitra George Knighton Tom Novak Les Rubenstein Olan Parr Jerry Wermiel Nick Fior'avante Terry Juan Edwin E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
W.
G.
Bingham S.
H. Shepherd R. Steve McKinney Donald R. Woodlan Nick Baldasari Charles Luguan John Connally George Davis Jeff Brown J.
M. Betancourt NRR/DL/LB¹3 NRR/DL/LB¹3 NRR/OL/AD NRR/DS I/AD NRR/DS I/ASB NRR/DS I/ASB NRR/DS I/AS8 APS APS Bechtel Bechtel APS Texas Utilities Bechtel C-E C-E C-E C-E
HACi"GROUND
~
HISTORY STAFF/APP LICAl'fT ACTIOHS o
APPENDIX R REQUIRENEHT e
ASSESSflEHT OF STAFF POS ITIOll
~
PVisGS POS ITIOH
APPEtlDIX R REQUIREI"iEHT III,L.2,<
"THE PROCESS l'10)lITORIi'iC FUf(CTIOf'l SHALL BE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING lG DIRECT READIilGS OF THE PROCESS VARI%LES f(ECESSARY TO PERFORI"l AND CONTROL THE ABOVE FU",lCTIOHS" III L 2 "THE REACTIVITY COi>TROL FU'$CTIOfl SHALL BE CAPADLE OF ACHIEVI lC AflD PIAIHTAIHING COLD SHL'TD04'H REACTIVITY CONDITIONS"
BASIS FOR PVNGS REYiOTE SflUTDO'llN PANEL 6
f'lEET CESSAR INTERFACE e
PROYIDL= DISCONNECT SHITCHES TO YiEET APPE'RADIX R
AS AGREED AT THE FIRE PROTECTION INDEPENDENT REVIE'( BOARD f"lEETIflG (SEPTERER "981) o ADD Tcoco TO FACILITATE OPERATING PROCEDURES
DES IG'::J BAS IS CYCS BORATIOH e
AUTONATICALLY TERf'jIilATE CHARGING'l6 A'.lD LETDOHN OH LOP o
WITH OR WITHOUT LOP, APl OPERATOR CAN READILY ISOLATE CHARGING AND LETDOWN CHARGING'36 TO NAKEUP FOR SHRIhKAGE IS EQUIVALEi'3T TO ENERGEi'tCY BORATIOH
~
SHUTDO~'$fd SEQUENCE
~
~
~'
~a
~ 4h race'hhw
~
~O P
~ ~ W I
~ ~
LWI ha hr ~
~
~
I L
~ 'CC Ic h
~
h yWl 4C Ch<<1 1 r I
IP.PI.E
~
hrvr ICW VWrh
~
~
~
QW I
~ I
/g Pp Ca
~p r
~
II Qar
~I 1 I 1 r ~
~
v ~ w
~
h 1 VVC
~ ~
~
C h
% V
~ 'r
~
~I
~
~ ~\\
Pate Verde Nuctcar Gcncratint', Station FSAR
/
~ r rp arc rwc r SAFE SHUTDOHN FLOH PATHS CHEttICAL AND VOLUHE CONTROL SYSTEH Figure 9B-41
SQU" I
CONTROL ROOf"1 F IRE II NANUAL SCRAf'l III ACTIVATE RSP STABILIZE AT HOT STANDBY IV BEGIN OPERATOR ROUNDS A,
TERNINATE LETDOt'IN B,
ISOLATE NON BORATED HATER SOURCES V
BEGIN COOLDONN A,
ALIGN BORATED SOURCE B,
INJECT AS REQUIRED FOR SHRINKAGE VI ACHIEVE COLD SHUTDOMN
SHUTDOWN t1ARGIN VERSUS TINE FRON CONTROL ROON EVACUATION e 60 F/HR COOLDONN FRON FULL POl'JER TO 350 F
(SDC)
~ 3 CHARGING PUNPS INJECTING NON BORATED HATER, FULL LETDOWN
~ ALL CONTROL RODS INSERTED e BEGINNING OF CORE LIFE SDC ENTRY Tees 350~F COOLDONN STOPS (3,5HRS) 12
~ TIj'K (HRS) 24
COST e
BACKFIT COST = $1,5 f1ILLIOw'3 0')ITS) e SCOPE DISCOili~ECT PANEL CABLIf'l6 ELECTROl I C PROCESSOR READOI'T/t10DI FI CATI Oil TO RSP
COi<CLUS IOil e
HO APPAREf'lT PROBLEN AS IS e
LITTLE, IF ANY, BEf'lEFIT TQ SFil'S e
4ILLIi16 TO DO PRA TO GIVE STAFF FUPTf{ER COf'1FIDEHCE Iil COf'lCLUS I Of'~
I r t
lj