ML19281A594
| ML19281A594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000470 |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1979 |
| From: | Villalva I Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903210490 | |
| Download: ML19281A594 (6) | |
Text
.
! $ 0.:
DE-J.
DISTRIBUTION SHEET FOR MEETING
SUMMARY
Docket File J. Knight NRC PDR D. Ross Local PDR R. Tedesco TIC S. Pawlicki
~
Branch File R. Satterfield NRR Reading K. Kniel H. Denton T. Novak E. Case Z. Rosztoczy D. Crutchfield R. Bosnak D. Bunch, Program Support Chief, ICSB R. Boyd W. Butler R. DeYoung F. Rose D. Muller V. Moore **
D. 'Vassallo R. Vollmer**
D. Skovholt M. Ernst **
W.tGammill R. Denise **
F. Williams R. Ballard **
J. Stolz B. Your.gbl ood **
R. Baer W. Regan **
- 0. Parr G. Chipman S. Varga R. Houston R. Clark J. Collins *-
T. Speis W. Kregar G. Lear M. Spangler **
C. J. Hel temes, Jr.
V. Benaroya ACRS (16)
J. Stepp L. Crocker L. Hulman **
H. Berkow H. Ornstein **
Project Manager - I. Villaiva Attorney, ELD M. Elliott ***
IE (3)
- Branch Chief, OR ***
SD (7)
Project Manager, OR ***
Licensing Assistant - H. Gearin B. Faulenberry, IE Principal Staff Participants OPA **
L. Rubenstein
- IE requires 4 copies for D.C. Cook & 7 copies for Std. Referenced Designs
- If attended by member of that branch
- If deemed appropriate 7903210NO
STATUS OF TOPICAL REPORTS (Continued)
CENPD-162-A "CHF Correlation fo'; C-E Fuel Assemblies with Standard Spaccr Grids - Part 1; Uaiform Ax2al Power Distribution". Accepted with caveat thrc we needed a report on non-uniform axial heat input which was provided in CENPD-207.
CENPD-168-A
" Design Basis Pipe Breaks for the Combustica Engineering Two Loop Reactor Coolant System".
Accepted - This report gives break locations for restraint and support system design.
CENPD-169
" Assessment of the Accuracy of PWR Operating Limits as Determined by Core Operating Limit Sup'svisory System".
Accented; however, although we have accepted the methodolgy for use of incore de-tectors to develop Fq, the complete acceptance is dependent upon the results of our review of CENPD 145 and 153, neither of which is incorporated by reference, for uncertainty analyses.
CENPD-170
" Assessment of the Accuracy of the PWR Safety System Actuation as Performed by the Core Protection Calculators". Accepted.
CENPD-179 "C-E Thermo-Structural Fuel Evaluation Model".
Not Accepted.
CENPD-180 "Radioiodine Behavior in Reactor Coolant During Transient Opera-tion".
Review not complete; therefore not accented.
Report pre-sents data obtained at operating plants and proposes a spiking model similar to that used by staff.
CENPD-182
" Seismic Qualification of C-E Instrumentation Equipment". Reviet:
not complete, in fact can be characterized as dragging; therefort, report not accepted.
CENPD-183 "C-E Methods for Loss of Flow Analysis".
Review not complete, thus report not accepted. Report under review and next action is by staff; however, review of CENPD 1/7 must be completed before this report can be accepted. Note:
CENPD 177 is not listed as being incorporated by reference by C-E.
CENPD-187
" Method of Analyzing Creep Collapse of Oval Cladding", "HERNETE,
-188 A Multi-Dimensional Time Kinetics Code for PWR Transients", and
-190' "C-E Method for Control Element Assembly Ejection Analysis",
respectively. Each accepted.
CENPD-198 "Zicaloy Growth-In-Reactor Dimensional Changes in Zircaloy-4 Fuel Assemblies". Original report accented with.eertain-reserva-tions.' Supplement #1 of report not yet complete; therefore, Supplement #1 not vet nooroved.
CENPD-201
" Reactor Coolant Pump Performance". Accented, subject to C-E conducting pump test which is expected to be conducted in 1979.
CENPD-206
" TORC Code Verification and Simplified Modeling Method".
Under review, but staff progress appears to be extremely slow. (NOTE:
It seems that CENPD-161 which describes TJRC should also be incorporated by reference, but is not.)
. ~,
..y
, STATUS OF TOPICAL REPORTS (Continued):
CENPD-207
" Critical Heat Flux Correlation for C-E Fuel Assemblies With Standard Spacer Grids, Part 2, Non-Uniform Axial Power Distribu-tion".
Still under review, thus not approved, but review believed to be nearly complete. See comments on CENPD-162.
CENPD-210 "A Description of the C-E NSSS Quality Assurance Program". Accepted CENPD-225
" Fuel and Poison Rod Bowing".
Under review, thus not vet accepted.
Additicnal information responding to staff positions is to be submitted in first quarter of 1979.
CENPD-252
" Blowdown Analysis Method; Method for the An.11ysis of Blowdown Induced Forces in a Reactor Vessel".
Reviewed and accepted sub-ject to four qualifications (limitations) imposed in using the CEFLAS3-4B computer program.
CENPD-254
" Post-LOCA Long Term Cooling Evaluation Model".
Still under review, thus not yet accented, but review expected to be completed during the su=mer of 1979.
CENPD-255
" Qualification of Combustion Engineering Class IE Instrumentation".
Under review, but it. is +beli' ved..that.this.copical report will be e
rejected.
STATUS OF TOPICAL REPORTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE CESSAR FSAR REPORT NUMBER COMMENTS CENPD-26 LOCA model for Interim Acceptance Criteria - Accepted but no longer applicable. Was replaced by a model initially approved in June of 1975, and which has been subsequently amended.
CENPD-67
" Iodine Decontamination Factors During PWR Steam Generation and Steam Venting" - Although we have approved this topical report, we did not allow the use of anything in this report that was not subsequently put into SRP.
(See also CENPD 180)
CENPD-80
" Moisture Carryover During an NSSS Steam Line T,reak Accident". The review of this report was never completed; last action was a request for information to CE on July 12, 1974. It seems that this report is to be superceded, but documentation of this action cannot be located; therefore, report not approved.
CENPD-98
" Coast Code Description".
This report has been accepted; however, the SER for the report limits use of code to predictions of flow during the first few seconds following a pump trip.
(See also CENPD 183 and 177.)
CENPD-107 "CESEC" - This report is used to model overall NSSS responses and one supplement describes the ATWS model. The report is not vet approved; however, all requests for additional informatfon have been responded to except those pertaining to comparison with plant data. The plant data information is to be provided in the first quarter of 1979.
CENPD-105
" Fast Neutron Attenuation by the ANISN-SHADRAC Analytical Method".
It appears that this topical was submitted as a "for information only" type of report, and if so should not be referenced. No record of review found.
CENPD-ll8 "Densification of Combustion Engineering Fuel".
This report has not been approved. It appears that the required information for ECCS fuel densification is incorporated in CEN'D-139.
CENPD-132 "CEFLASH-4A Fortran IV Digi al Computer Program for Reactor Blow-
-134 down Analysis", "COMPERC-II A Program for Emergency Refill-Reflood
-135 of the Core", "STRIKIN-II A Cylincrical Geometry Fuel Rod Heat
-137 Transfer Program", " Calculative Methods for the C-E Small Break
-138 LOCA Evaluation Model", " PARCH - A FORTRAN IV Digital Computer and 213 Program to Evaluate Pool-Boiling Axial Rod, and Coolant Heatup",
and " Application of FLECHT Reflood Heat Transfer Coefficient to C-E 16 x 16 Fuel Bundles", respectively. Each of tha above topical reports, including the latest supplements has been approved.
SF e
e 4
ANNEX 3
/
STATUS OF TOPICAL REPORTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE CESSAR FSAR
ALTERNATIVES FOR REVIEW OF CESSAR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION INFORMATION FDA OL 1.
Criteria (like PDA)
Meth., Proc. & Data 2.
CENPD 255 FDA 3.
Good Meth.
FDA 4.
Good Meth.
Proc. & Data 5.
Good Meth &
Proc. & Data Sample Proc. & Data 6.
Good Meth. & Proc.
Final Proc. & Data 7.
Good Meth., Proc., Sample Data Final Proc. & Data 8.
Good Meth. &
Lead Plant Done Lead Plant Proc. & Data Other Plants - fill in proc.
& data for different equipment 9.
Potential Antitrust Good Meth FDA Problem Spec eq't Proc.& Data FEB 1 1;l:
4 9
ANNEX 2
ALTERNATIVES FOR REVIEW OF CESSAR EOUIPMENT QUALIFICATION INFOR&\\ TION
o FE5 1 1979 C. J. Hel temes,
In considering the identified problem, one should recognize that a Type 1 FDA, the type for which Combustion Engineering has tencered an ap' plication with the CESSAR, can be used for two purposes:
(1) for referencing purposes in OL applications for those plants which previously reference ( the CESSAR PSAR in their CP applications, and (2) for referencing purposes in new CP applications.
If the FDA application were to be used merely to support OL applications for plants whose CP's were based on the CESSAR PSAR and for which equip-ment had already been procured, then there would be no antitrust concern, per se. This is true because the FSAR would be docu enting information on the equipment that had already been purchased; therefore, the FSAR would have no adverse effect on antitrust consequer. css.
However, if the CESSAR is to be used for forward referenceabi'.ity purposes, then the aforementioned antitrust problems coulc eccur.
As you know, we are meeting with Combustion Engineering or. February 7, 1979, to discuss the acceptability of the CESSAR and policy matters that could affect its usage.
It is, therefore, imperative -hat we have internal agreement as tu ' aw we are going to pursue 1's atter prior to the meeting.
/
i
). h /btb Y I. Vi lalva, Project Manager Standardization Branch Division of Project Management cc:
R. Boyd D. Ross W. Gammill R. DeYoung R. Mattson F. Schroeder R. Tedesco J. Knight S. Hanauer R. Satterfield C. Honeycutt J. Saltzman J. Rutberg SB Personnel
iP FEB 1 19 7o C. J. Heltemes -
breadth usually associated with a FSAR. Although this contention has merit, it appears that Combustion Engineering has taken extrete measttres in the guise of avoiding antitrust problems. On the other extreme, some of the information being requested by the I&CSB seems to be too detailed and in direct conflict with our responsibilities with regard to antitrust matters. Thus, a substantial compromise on the part of C-E and the staff is required regarding the level of detail of information to be provided. A recomended solution would include the following ingredients:
(1) the I&CSB question would delete all reference.to manufacturer for equipment normally procured by either Combustion Engineering or an applicar.t referencing the CESSAR FSAR in.CP applications, (2) in lieu of such infornation, the request should seek materials and performance specification type information used to purchase said equipment including the specifications and/or requirements for the qualification testing of the equipment, and (3) Combustion Engineering should be requested to provide, on a selected basis, the identification of specific equipment wnich meets these specifications, e.g., that provided on the CESSAR lead plant with the understanding that such information does not imply trat ali CESSAR plants would use identical equipment.
The thrust of the concern can be summarized as follows.
On t e one hand, the Commission's policy on standardization stipulates that the staff will monitor the standardization program to assure that each applicant properly considers antitrust matters in developing or using FDA designs. Towards this end, the staff is to take aaprcpriate action if it detects the development of a situation that appears to have the potential for creating problems of an antitrust nature.
One such potential problem is the specifying of procured equipment in -he FDA-1 application in such a manner that it would favor or specify a particular supplier at the exclusion of other qualified suppliers. On the other hand, our. current practica for reviewing FSARs submitted in support of OL applications is such that we request very detailed infonnation.
Such a request, if made prior to procuring equipment (i.e., during a CP review) could implicitly or explicitly cause adverse antitust actions. The recent request for information generated by the I&CSB for the CESSAR acceptance review is a case in point. In attempting to obtain as much detailed information as possible on the environmental qualification of electrical equipment, the I&CSB is requesting that all Class IE electrical equipment be identified and that said identi-fication include the manufacturer and the manufacturer's type and rodel number.
In my opinion, such a request would require C-E to select a specific vendor for each such piece of eqeipment.
If such is the case, we will have created the potential antitrust conflict described in the Comission's standardization policy.