ML19323H956
| ML19323H956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1713, NUDOCS 8006170343 | |
| Download: ML19323H956 (23) | |
Text
,--
l THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R.QUAllTY PAGES 0023-/'//3 q
L DATE ISSUED: 4/12/80 j
~
4 MEETING MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ATWS 9
/
JANUARY 25, 1980 WASHINGTON, D. C.
the ACRS Subcomittee on ATWS met in Washington, D.C.,
h NRC Staff On January 25, 1980 to discuss proposed resolution of ATWS with representa and the Nuclear Industry.
There were no requests Register on December 28, 1979 and January 22. 1980.
d for oral or written statements from members of the public and none we The attendees Attachment A is a copy of the meeting agenda.
Attachment C is a tentative schedule of the presentations at the meeting.
list is Attachment B. Selected slides and handouts from the meeting are Atta A complete set of slides and handouts is attached to the of the meeting.
to these minutes.
office copy of these minutes.
OPEN SESSION (8:31 am - 2:00 pm) INTRODUCTION The Dr. Kerr, Subcommittee Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:31 am Chairman explained the purpose of the meeting and the procedures d
l ing the meeting, pointing out the Mr. Paul Boehnert Employee in attendance.
to begin the day's presentations.
NEW NRC POSITION ON ATWS - S. HAN AUER (NRC) i Dr. Hanauer recited a brief review of the history of the ATWS proble He noted that be-with the issuance of Volur6es 1 and 2 of NUREG-0460 in 1978.
cause of critisms of the approach taken in the first two volumes of th Staff issued Volume 3 which contains a set of Alternatives (pr various cla The majority of plants would be subjected to Alternative 3 fixes.
Dr. Hanauer noted that the NRC has been impacted by a number of plants.
Accordingly the NRC past year the most important of being the.TMI-2 accident.
Staff has established a new Position on ATWS.
8006170343
. January 25, 1980 ATWS Meeting It has been decided by H. Denton that all plants, operating and under construction, will promptly implement most of the hardware fixes specified under Alternative 3 Dr. Hanauer termed the new requirement as an "Alterna-of Volume 3 of NUREG-0460.
Further, all plants will, over the long-term, be subjected to most of ti ve 3A".
the requirements under Alternative 4 of 0460. These requirements were specified as " Alternative 4A".
Dr.,Hanauer noted that prompt implementation of the 3A Alternative will provide insnediate improvement in protection against ATWS which The NRC will set will allow the phasing in of Alternative 4A requirements.
This will put NRC out of the dates-certain for installation of the ATWS fixes.
Dr. Hanauer critical path for design and installation of the necessary components.
said that the Nuclear Industry has the responsibility for this task, and the Dr. Hanauer NRC approach is similar to the short-term Lessons Learned effort.
also said that he cannot specify the Alternative 3A and 4A fixes at this time pending NRC study of the Industry reports recently submitted in response to the It is not early verification effort initiated by R. Mattson in February 1979.
by Dr. Hanauer that NRC wants to move expeditiously on this problem, and the Staff does not feel it is productive to continue the early verification approach noted above.
Dr. Hanauer said that NRC would like ACRS comments on the NRC ATWS Position at the Committee's March 1980 meeting. Dr. Kerr urged that NRC provide written detail of its Position on ATWS to the ACRS well in advance of the March meeting.
Dr. Hanauer said he would endeavor to provide this material well in advance of the March meeting.
NRC REVIEW 0F ATWS ANALYSES RECEIVED TO DATE - A. THADN4I (NRC STAFF)
Mr. Thadani begin by reviewing the Industry submittals sent in response to f R. Mattson's Early Verification letter of February 15, 1979 (Figure 1). He hoted that as of today, NRC has received very little information from B&W. He also noted that B&W intends to submit a report on ATWS to NRC the week cf February 4,1980.
Mr. Thadani suninarized the results of the PWR analyses for the Alternative 3 fixes (Figure 2). He noted that the CE plant designs now show the highest s
January 25, 1980
. ATWS Meeting It was noted that CE has peak pressures (4290 psi for the 3400 MW(t) design).
taken credit for leakage through the reactor vessel head flange in order to The CE plant pressures would be on the order of obtain the above pressures.
The B&W peak pressures have 6000 psi if vessel head leakage is not assumed.
decreased due to initial, ondition assumptions, such as the early availability c
of auxiliary feedwater and more favorable moderator temperature coefficients.
In response to a question from Mr. Ebersole, Mr. Thadani said that POR safety / relief valve tests being sponsored by EPRI will most likely include In response to a question from Dr. Lee concerning the ATWS-type tests.
necessity for CE to require vessel head lift, Mr. Thadani noted that there were (1) power ratings of the plants assumed in the original two reasons for this:
analysis were non-conservative (2560 vs. 2700 MW(t), and (2) the differenc the value of the MTC originally assumed (-6 pcm vs. -2 pcm).
Figure 3 details the major concerns the StTff has with the PWR Alterna j
Among the items noted that have not been infomation received to date.
described previously include the consideration of primary system voiding and its effect on long-term shutdown, lack of information on plants that
)
have isolated PORVs, lack of infomation on instrumentation and control f
system qualification, and lack of significant information on valve operabil\\
following peak pressures.
\\
In response to a question from Dr. Kerr, Mr. Thadani noted that the " Alte 3A" fix will most likely include the requirements specified in the current Alternative 3, plus additional requirements such as. instrumentation qualification i
j to assure safe shutdown.
\\
Mr. Thadani suninarized the BWR analysis results for the Alternative 3 fix In the case of all transients analyzed, the peak pool temperatures (Figure 4).
However, Mr. Thadani said that the NRC believes that in were less than 200 F.
some cases the LOCA pool temperatures may exceed 200 F depending on 0
initial assumptions used in the analysis.
t j
January 25, 1980 ATWS Meeting The Staff's major concerns with the information supplied by GE include the effects of power oscillations (limit cycle oscillations due to the introduc-tion of cold cooling water into the core), equipment qualification, lack of information on reactor coolant pressure boundary components (BWR-3) and balance of plant components (BWR-4/5/6), and lack of information on suppression pool temperature and safety /rel'ief valve loads.
Mr. Ebersole asked if liquid leakage is accounted for when considering the Mr. Thadani said that the system is considered undamaged boron injection rate.
in respect to liquid leakage.
The advantages of the Alternative 4' fix, as the NRC sees them, were describe Among the items noted were the following:
pro.ection from most ATWS Mr. Thadani.
events, increased confidence in the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, reduction in the concern over the limit cycle in BWRs, protection from single failure, and a plant that is more tolerant of operate error given an ATWS.
In regard to the question of potential operator error given an ATWS, Dr. Kerr esked if'well trained (post-TMI) operators will still have to wait 10 minutes before taking action. He said it would be unrealistic to assume operators don't do anything (whether it's the right or wrong action) within the first Mr. Thadani replied that it would be impossible 10 minutes of an ATWS.
to account for all possible operator actions given an ATWS situation, however it is the NRC's intent to be able to give the operator sufficient time (10-20 minutes) to evaluate the information he has available, and review his procedures so that he is~ more likely to take proper action.
Referring to the advantages of the Alternative 4 fix noted above, Dr. Kerr suggested that the NRC also list the disadvantages of implementina Alternative 4 fixes and be prepared to discuss them when the NRC comes before the full Committee for review of its fbsition.
ATWS Meeting January 25, 1980 Mr. Thadani. reviewed the status of the recirculation pump trip (RPT) installation in operating BWRs (Figure 5). He noted that the last operat-ing plant to install RPT will be Dresden 2 which is planned to have installa-tion complete by January 1981. Mr. Thadani also noted that some of the installation dates shown are the results of equipment delays, and NRC manage-ment in attempting to experiite equipment deliveries.
There were a number of questions from the Subcommittee.
In response to question from Dr. Lee on the major differences between Alternatives 3 and 4 as they apply to GE plants, Mr. Thadani said the major difference is the capacity of the liquid poison injection system (about 86 gpm for Alternative 3, approximately 400 gpm for Alternative 4). Mr. Ebersole raised the concern that given an ATWS in a BWR, when the liquid poison injection solution is exhausted how will the plant be maintained sub-critical if fresh water is added for energy removal?
Mr. Thadant said this point needs to be examined by the Staff, and this will be done. Dr. Kerr asked how much of a reduction in risk from core melt caused by ATWS would be achieved, given implementation of the Alternative 4A fix.
Mr. Thadani replied that he believed this risk would be reduced by about a factor of 100. Mr. Epler stated that he did not believe the risk could be reduced any more than a factor of 10. Mr. Ebersole asked if given the infrequent ATWS challenge, is it necessary to put in a safety-grade RPT system.
Mr. Thadani replied that the Alternative 4 RPT system is not safety grade in the strict sense and that there is a basic lack of redundance in the system.
Thr.t is, the system is single-failure proof only up to the pump breakers.
AT0!!IC INDUSTRIAL FORUM PRESENTATION - J. SORENSEN (AIF)
Mr. Sorensen provided a brief present;ation to the Subcomittee. Mr. Sorensen made the following points:
'AIF is concerned over the "new approach" to regulation being applied by the Staff. AIF questions the propriety, and perhaps the legality, of the new approach.
I
January 25, 1980.
~
ATWS Meeting lly
'AIF questions whether the ATWS fix proposed by the Staff is te He said the Staff He noted that the fix will be costly.
in safety.
defensible.
should be made to demonstrate a connensurate level of inc E
'AIF urges the ACRS not endorse the approach being used by th in this case without the Committee's careful scrutiny, and Industry comment.
GENERAL ELECTRIC PRESENTATION - G. SHERWOOD, H. PFEFFERLE He noted Mr. Glen Shemood provided opening remarks for the GE presentation that the Alternative 3 modifications would cost between $1-i t ATWS. Alternative 4 result in a factor of 50-100 improvement in protection aga nsile providing only modifications, on the other hand, would cost $8-15M/ plant wh difications.
a factor of 2 improvement in ATWS protection over Alternative 3 mo se Dr. Shemood questioned the lack of increased safety benefit f incurred for Alternative 4 modifications.
i t ATWS for that Alternative 3 modifications are sufficient to protect aga ns BWRs.
EN GE ANALYSIS SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE 3 MODIF f
ed Mr. Pfefferlen begin by noting that the Alternative 3 assessment w GE devoted approxi-in response to the NRC Staff's early verification request.
his report was mately 25 man-years to this effort and a final version of t recently submitted to the NRC Staff.
the analysis t s:
GE's approach to the analysis embraces the following parame er itivity studies was based on a representative plant for each product line, sens d
d GE assumed were provided, and all ATWS~ initiating transients were consi ere.
i of a 2 pump no control rod motion and also assumed automatic (tim standby liquid control system.
design by GE Mr. Pfefferlen described an ATWS mitigation (Figure 6).
This logic would activate recirculation to initiate an ATWS protection logic.
o i
e e January 25, 1980 ATWS Meeting pump trip, ARI (alternate rod insertion) and, by using the APRM system to monitor n:utron flux, would conduct a " failure to scram test" before the liquid pcison injection system is activated. Dr. Lipinski expressed concern over the relf-ability of the above " failure to scram test" subsystem in relation to the overall system reliability, noting that if this system does not work the liquid poison may not be injected. GE said they would take these comments under advisement.
The expected results'for such critical parameters as peak RCS pressure pool bulk temperature, and containment pressure were shown for the BW In response to a question (Figure 7). All results were within safety limits.
from Mr. Ebersole concerning possible seal leakage and loss of reactivity due to boron dilution, GE replied that the boron injection system has a capacity The equipment is qualified to withstand that is 25% in excess of requirements.
In addition, the system has a make-up capability.
high pressures.
GE described the sensitivity studies conducted in conjunction with the ATWS analysis (Figure 8).
In response to a question from Dr. Saunders, Mr. Pfefferlen replied that the analysis showed a relative insensivity to a variation in the Mr. Ray asked how far the analysis took the assumption of the parameters.
delay in liquid poison injection. Mr. Pfefferlen replied that injection was delayed as long as 300 seconds (180 seconds was the base-case assumption).
In response to questions from Dr. Lee, there was discussion of the capability of the GE computer code used to predict the results of the ATWS analyses.
Concern centered in particular on the accuracy of the modeling of the limit cycle phenomenon.
Mr. Pfefferlen described the conservative radiological assessment used in the ATWS analysis (Figure 9).
In conclusion Mr. Pfefferlen state'd that RCP trip combined with 2 pump standby liquid control and the high pressure cooling systens now in place will adequately protect against ATWS.
It is GE's position that the Alterative 3 u
. January 25, 1980 ATWS Meeting modification specified in NUREG-0460. Volume 3 is adequate for protection against Mr. Pfefferlen also observed that GE believes the proposed Staff ATWS in a BWR.
"new approach" is a major setback to a meaningful and orderly resolution of the ATWS issue.
40STON EDISON PRESD4 TAT 10N - W. LARSON Mr. Larson noted that Boston Edison is concerned over the fom, structure, and He said process of the ATWS resolution as being proposed by the NRC Staff.
that generic issues such as ATWS should be resolved on a timely basis, but must be done in an consistent, logical manner. He also noted that issues such as ATWS should be given proper priority based on risk assessment He expressed concern with the uncertainty in and engineering judgement.
plant construction, licensing, and management introduced by the new Staff Mr. Larson said that the ATWS issue should be folded approach to ATWS.
into the risk study associated with IREP.
Finally, Mr. Larson noted that resolution of ATWS should focus as much on operational safety as on design fixes.
Dr. Kerr asked Mr. Larson how he would decide whether or not ATWS is a problem.' Mr. Larson agreed with Dr. Kerr's suggestion that if the plant can tolerate ATWS, it is not a problem. Dr. Kerr also asked Mr. Larson if he had a cut off point for the probability of a core melt, below which the contribution from a potential ATWS does not need to be addressed.
Mr. Larson replied that preliminary discussion with company representatives suggested a goal on the order of 1 X 10-5 from all contributions.
In response to further questions from Dr. Kerr, Mr. Larson replied that he believes the Staff should assure itself that the proposed ATWS fixes will have a positive safety increment.
Dr. Kerr recessed the transcribed portion of the meeting at 1:40 p.m. to go into open executive session.
~
. January 25, 1980 ATWS Meeting OPEN EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Kerr surveyed the Subcomittee members and consultants to determine if The following requests had any requests for infomation from the NRC Staff.
were noted:
Dr. Lee
' Requested the NRC Staff provide information on whether or not the j
moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) is being calculated on the sam basis for all vendors. He said that it appeared to him that different parameters were being applied for the different vendors.
' Requested that the NRC provide an estimate of the reliability of various components stressed beyond Service Level C, and what inelastic analysis (if any) can be used.
Dr. Lipinski
- Requested the NRC provide a tabulation of the differences between Alternatives 3A and 4A and what would be required for the different Dr. Hanauer stated that this would be done.
reactor types.
Mr. Ebersole urged the NRC to take a close look at the CE evaluation of the results of vessel head lift.
Dr. Kerr requested that the consultlnts provide coments on comparisons of Alternative 3A versus Alternative 4A fixes being proposed by the NRC.
The Chairman also asked.for comments on the possibility of varying the MTC (90% versus 95% versus 99%) or perhaps an alternative approach to this.
Dr. Kerr requested consui, tant responses within ons' week.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.'
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript located
~
NOT E:
in the NRC Public Document Room, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be obtained from International Verbatim Reporters, Inc.,
499 South Capitol $tteet, S. W., Sutte 107, Washington, D.C. 20002.
e-9
Material Provided for ACRS ATWS Meeting January 25, 1980 1.
Vu-graphs used by NRC (6).
2.
Vu-graphs used by GE (15).
3.
Handout from AIF 4
Federal Resiger / V:1. 44. No. 250 / Friday, December 28, 1979 / Notic:s NUCLEAR REQULATORY COteletSSION
/sp8 '
8 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Anticipated Trenelents Without Screm, ateeting he ACRS Subcommittee on Anticipated Trar sients Without Scram (ATWS) will hold an open meeting on january 25.1980, in Room 1046.1717 H St NW., Washington.DC 20555. Notice of this meeting was published December 30,1979.
He agenda for subject meeting shall be as follows:
Friday, January 25,1000; a2e a.sa. Until j
Conclusion of Business
%e Subcommittee will discuss proposed resolution of ATWS with representatives of the NRC Staff.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for'the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be Fetteral Register / Vol.13. No.15 / Tnesil.iy. J.n nary 22.1onn / Notices obtained by a prepaid telephone call to the cotmirant Designated Federal
[
Employee.Mr. Paul A.Boehnert NUCLEAR REGULATORY (telephone 202/834-3267) between 8:15 COMMISSION a.m. and 5:00 p.m EST.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Dated: December 20.1979.
Safeguards, Subcommittee on E*ted ransients Y!ithout Scram; A is ry
'tiee Mriqpement Oficer.
,g ya on.rwunes ru.d tw-ra== em)
He agenda for the January 25.1980 suase ones rase-e-,
meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) has been amended to include one or more closed session.s. if necessary, for the purpose of exploring matters involving proprietary information.
I have determinnd. in accordance with Subsection 10(d) of the Federal Adviwry Committee Act(Pub.L92-403), that, should such sessions be required, it is necessary to close these sessions to protect proprietary information. Sec 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
Notice of this meeting was published December 28. '1979 (44 FR 76889) and all other items regarding this meeting remain the same as published at that time.
Dated: January to.1980.
John C.Hoyla Advisory Committee Monaget,ent Officer.
tra Doc. an. tom rii d -n-em aes nj sumo coot nues-u ATTACHMDIT A sP
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ATWS JANUARY 25, 1980 WASHINGTON, D.C.
ATTENDEES LIST NRC ACRS W. Kerr, Chairman M. D. Stolzenberg D. Ebersole, Member G. D. McPherson C. Mark, Member R. Van Houten J. Ray, Member M. El-Zeftawy S. Ditto, Consultant M. Srinivasan E. Epler, Consultant C. Z. Serpan i
J. Lee, Consultant A. Thadani S. Hanauer W. Lipinski, Consultant S. Saunders, Consultant NCRTHERN STATES POWER P. Boehnert, Staff
- J. A. Gonyeau
- Designated Federal Employee PENNA POWER & LIGHT ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM J. Zola F. Stetson E. Bragger S.C. ELEC & GAS C0 KMC, INC D. F. Knuth
- 0. Dixon CINN GAS & ELEC COMMONWEALTH EDISON C0 F. Suetkovich L. O. DelGeorge CAROLIN A POWER & LIGHT C0 BURNS & R0W, INC C. S. Bohanan R. Buldwin LNRD&T WESTINGHOUSE K. C. Fortino R. W. Steither SCIENCE APPLICATIONS, INC IVRI i
A. J. Gasdor W. Miller BALTIM0RE GAS & ELEC C0 GPU SERVICE E. Wallace R. C. L. Olson BABCOCK & WILCOX C0 NORTHEAST UTILITIES
- f. L. Baldwin R. L. McGuinness C. S. Banwarth ATTACHMINT B
Attendess List - ATWS Mtg 1/25/80 Page 2 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORP _
D. K. Greene D. A. Kreps STONE & WEBSTER BOSTON EDISON C0 D. R. Jaquette S. Malony C. Grouchmal W. Larson MISSISSIPPI P&L PASNY M. R. Knight G. Rawgarao MIDDLE SOUTH SERVICES, INC BECHTEL M. T. David K. R. Iyengar GENERAL ELECTRIC EPRI W. E. Lotz A. L. Amitage W. L. Fiock TEPCO J. M. Weiss L. B. Claassen H. Hamada H. C. Pfefferlen G. G. Shemood VE PC0 L. S. Gifford W. B. Rodill EBASCO SERVICES, INC M. P. Horrell PG&E S. E. Traisman WASHINGT01 PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM G. C. Sorensen 4
\\
k w.,
ACRS AWS SUBC04MITTEE MEETI!G WPSHINGTON, D.C.
JANUARY 25, 1980
- TENTATIVE SCHEDULE CF PRESENTATIONS -
I.
Introduction W. Kerr, Chairman II.
NRC Presentation Overview and ' tatus of AWS Review Effort Since WI-2 Accident S
A.
B.
Status of NRC Review of Vendor Analyses Received to Date C.
Staff Concerns with Analyses 1.
Generic 2.
Plant-Specific 3.
'IMI-2 Related Concerns for PWRs Status of ATAS Recirculation Dung Trip Installation in BhRs D.
E.
E C Requests for Further Analyses F.
WC Staf f Comments on Proposed AWS Rule III.
Industry / Vendor Presentations AIF - J. Sorensen (10 min)
General Electric - H. Pfefferlen, J. Weiss (30 min)
Boston Edison - W. Larson (20 min)
IV. Discussion V.
Adjourn I
ATracHmsky c
DEP0RTS SUB'llTTALS Sl!!CE 2/15/69 LETTER GE ALT. 3 E'c'R 4/5/E fiAY 79 '
ALT. 2 BWR 3 JUNE 79 ALT. 3 BWR 4/5/6 Jail. 80 ALT. 3 BWR 3 JAfl. 80 CE ALT. 3 2710/3400/3800 NOV. 70 BaW VERY LITTLE INFO.
ALT. 3 (LETTER REPORT) 177/205 JULY 79 FEW SUI 1 MARY SHEETS JAll. 23.
'80 11 ALT. 3 + SOf1E ALT. 4 JUllE 79 RADIOLOGICAL NOV. 79 It1 PROVED JUflE REPORT DEC. 79 e
fit VRE /
i
' ^
SUMMARY
OF PWR REddLTS ALTERNATE 3 WESTillGHOUSE DESIGNS TRANSIEllT PEAK CALCULATED PRESSURE REF; 1F0 60 SEC. 1100 PSI PORV AFW DELAY SG DESIGN LOSS OF LOAD 2974
+166
+134
+151 COMBUSTION ENGINEERIllG DESIGNS 2710 3400 3800 MWT MMT MhT LOFW 4220 4290 3800 BABC0CK 3 WILCOX DES:E ;5 177 FA 145 ?4 205 FA LOFW 3464 N/A 3762 9
f/(VME bl 1.
~~
PRELil11 NARY f1AJOR CONCERilS WITH PWR ALT. 3 lilF0FliAil0il 1.
VERY LITTLE IllFORf1ATI0ft FR0ft B&W
-2.
INC0f1PLETE AtlALYSES - If1 PROPER ANALYSIS OF SORV CA 3.
VOIDS Ill PRIMARY - LONG-TERM SHUIDOWN 14.
RELIANCE ON VESSEL HEAD LIFT (C-E) 5.
N0 lilFORf1AT10tl 0N PORV'S ISOLATED 6.'
LOSS OF INST CAPABILITY (C-E) 7.
N0 tilFORf1AT10fl ON lilST. AND CONTROL SYSTEM OUALIFIC 8.
FUNCTIO!! ABILITY OF S/V, R/V, PIPIi!G 9.
MAllY COMP. OVER 'C' (C-E) 10.
NO INFORf1ATI0il ON RCPB (B0P) COMP 0iE. "
11.
INSUFFICIENT IllFORilATI0ri ON VALVES :?_. ILITY i
SU.;.%RY Or cah RESUETb
~
ALTERf1 ATE 3 TRAllSIENTS BWR 3 BWR 4 Bk'R 5 BWR 6 VES.PR.
BULK VES.PR.
BULK VES.PR.
BULK VES.PR.
BULK.
MSIV CLOSURE 1370 179 1200 185 1247 179 1299 167 i
LOCV 1253 178 1195 188 1193 176 1235 163 PRES. REG.
FAILURE 1346 179 1280 189 1238 175 1296 167 TTWOBP 1346 179 1267 191 1230 178 1285 168 10RV 189 183 187 170 (13)
COMMEflT:
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS INFORMATION Off BWR'S 4/5/6 PRELIf11 NARY MAJOR CONCERilS WITH BWR INFORMATIO.i i
1.
LIf1IT CYCLE 2.
EQUIPMEili OUALIFICATION 3.
NO INFORMATION Oil RCPB COMP (BWR 3) - B0P (B!'C 4/5/6) 4.
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - POOL AT, S/RV LOADS a.
3,
'd
'l FIM' 9
RPT STATUS
~
PLAllTS W/0 RPT PLNiflED If1PLEf1ENTATION PLANT DRESDEN 2 1/81 00AD CITIES 2 12/80 flINE IIILE point 12/80 Bie ROCK PT,-
10/80 9/80 00AD CITIES l VERMONT YANKEE 9/80 8/80 flILLSTONE I DRESDEN-3 3/80 J
l t
F/dtME f v
8
MITIGATION SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL APPROACH:
o HIGH PRESSURE / LOW LEVEL INITIATES ATWS LOGIC o
RECIRCULATION PUMPS TRIP o
ALTERNATE R0D INSERTION o
FAILURE TO SCRAM TEST LIMIT FEED WATER (HIGH PRESSURE)
START STANDBY LIQUID CONTROL PUMPS o
RCIC AND HPCI/S START ON LOW WATER LEVEL.
l HCP:w/809 1/21/80 gjggg6 /
1
ALTERNATE 3 R$SULTS MAX VESSEL PEAK SUPPRESSION MAX CONTAINMENT BOTTOM PRESSURE P0OL BULK TEMPERATURE PRESSURE (PSIG)
(*F)
(PSIG)
BWR/3 1370 189 11.0
~
BWR/4 1296 189 11.0 BWR/5 1247 187 10.6 BWR/6 1299 170 7.3 I
a.
JMW:m/1502 1/21/80 f l 4 t/ N S 7
SENSITIVITY STUDIES TYPICAL SENSITIVITY STUDIES PERFORMED:
o VOID COEFFICIENT DOPPLER COEFFICIENT o
BORON DELAY (INJECTION TIME) o BORON FLOW RATE o
BORON MIXING EFFICIENCY o
HPCI/S AND RCIC CAPACITY o
o RHR CAPACITY o
RHR DELAY P0OL/ SERVICE WATER TEMPERATURE o
o POOL SIZE o
S/RV CAPACITY RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP DELAY o
RECIRCULATION PUMP INERTIA o
TWO PARAMETER SENSITIVITIES o
VOID AND DOPPLER COEFFICIENT o
RHR CAPACITY AND POOL / SERVICE WATER o
TEMPERATURES HCP:vx/MM/817 1/21/80 f/ CUE 6 9
. [hNSERVATIVE RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
~
100%CLADPERFORATIONSASSUMED-NONEEXPECTED o
METEOROLOGY B0UNDS ALL BWR SITES o
MAXIMUM RELEASE TRANSIENT UTILIZED o
SITE B0UNDARY LPZ 10CFR100 RESULTS RESULTS LIMIT WHOLE BODY 0.7 REM 0.1 REM 25 REM INHALATION 0.8 REM 0.14 REM 300 REM CONCLUSION CONSEQUENCES ARE WELL BELOW 10CFR100 LIMITS EVEN USING VERY CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS HCP;vK/m/835 1/21/80 1
f/wRE4
'I