ML19282D607
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| 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
Experience from Simplified Safety Evaluation Report Common Q Platform Pilot Project Richard Stattel.
Sr. Electronics Engineer, Instrumentation & Controls Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Common Q Platform
- TR Approved - 2000
- Calvert PAMS - 2003
- Palo Verde CPC - 2003
- TR Updated - 2013
- WDT NSAL - 2017
- 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) 2
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.
3
Common Q Platform 4
Common Q Platform 5
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.
6
Lessons Learned Summary
- 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
End of Presentation Questions 8