ML19282D607
| ML19282D607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/09/2019 |
| From: | Richard Stattel NRC/NRR/DE/EICB |
| To: | |
| Richard Stattel 415-8472 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19282D607 (8) | |
Text
Sr. Electronics Engineer, Instrumentation & Controls Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Experience from Simplified Safety Evaluation Report Common Q Platform Pilot Project
2 Common Q Platform TR Approved - 2000 Calvert PAMS - 2003 Palo Verde CPC - 2003 TR Updated - 2013 WDT NSAL - 2017 TR Revision 4 - 2019 TR Simplified Review Schedule:
Application for review received (June 2019)
Supplement 1 - Summary of changes (July 2019)
Supplement 2 - CPU Load Change (August 2019)
Supplement 3 - Equipment Qualification Report (September 2019)
Draft SE complete (October 2019)
3 Common Q Platform Qualifying Aspects of Common Q TR for Simplified Review Process The Common Q Platform was previously approved.
WDT Changes being made were known to the NRC due to previous operability reviews conducted in 2017 and 2018.
Additional changes to TR were considered to be minor.
A new module addition to platform - DI621 Equipment Qualification Test Results for new module to be provided Other minor report corrections and clarifications to be made.
The NRC did not expect the changes to affect any of the TR safety conclusions or methods of evaluation.
4 Common Q Platform
5 Common Q Platform
6 Common Q Platform Unanticipated Complications Discovered During TR Review A new operating system for the FPDS was being introduced to the platform.
Instead of a single module (DI621), the TR and test report included an additional 16 modules.
The TR change also added 7 new modules that had not undergone complete equipment qualification.
Westinghouse requested a revision to the method of making setpoint and configuration changes to the system during plant operations.
Though we were able to perform the evaluation using the simplified review process, several of the issues discovered during the review could have pushed the evaluation out of the process.
If the applicant had persisted in requesting the method change, the evaluation would have required RAIs and would have been extended significantly.
The NRC could have limited its review to the original anticipated project scope but this would likely have resulted in a subsequent second submittal.
7 Lessons Learned Summary
Questions 8
End of Presentation