ML20024C681
| ML20024C681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1983 |
| From: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| TASK-06, TASK-07, TASK-10, TASK-6, TASK-7, TASK-GB GPU-2201, NUDOCS 8307120953 | |
| Download: ML20024C681 (5) | |
Text
.-
' ^ ~..
^
~,..
'~ T.T ~
?^
~ ~
~ ~ ^ ' ~
h tYYY by QDl
.r :
s,,.
RECOMMENDATION Technical Evaluation From a technical standpoint, the EFI fluid system upgrade is recommended because:
b The proposed design change is a direct fix to the pro,blem (i.e.,
4.
present EPI flow is inadequate).
There is no impact on other safety analyses (i.e., a LOCA problem 3,
is resolved with an ECCS improvement).
LOCA mitigation would no longer be dependent an AIV and the SICI s
C.
(i.e., non-ECCS Systems).
The potential for future overcooling events on the 205 FA Plants D.
is minimized.
NRC review of the SRCI/ECI design philosophy for AIW control (pro-tection grade system versus post accident monitoring and/or control E.
j system) is avoided.
2.
Cast Evaluation From a cost standpoint, both proposed design changes represent an approz-imateB&Wexpenseof600to900k. The dual setpoint modification is a minimum design change, and NBC/ customer escalacion of AFW overfill pro-taction is highly probable. If this occurs, the C&I equipment change costs are estimated to be low and additional level caps (i.e., field 12-atallation) w6uld be required. Because of this high potential of cost escalation, the HPI System Upgrade is recommended.
Cost' recovery for AIW overfill is not probably since B&W is insti-
~
analysis require-Note:
gating the dual setpoint' design to meet accident If the single serpoint (6 ff.) design is retained, ATV over-ments.
* fill protectiren (if required) should be cost recoverable since escalation would represent a change in an accepted licensing posi-tien.
3.
Licensina From a licensing standpoint, both proposed design modifications are ' viewed The EPI System Upgrade is, however, considered more as major changes.
straight forward in that it has less impact on other analyses and systems.
The importance of CT5G 1evel on LOCA analysis will be readily apparent for The dual setpoint change is expected to raised the both proposed fixes.
obvious question as to why the high SG 1evel is required, and this could provoke a NRC review of the OTSG 1evel effects on small breaks.,3&W has
. - ;,.m-
- G * ;. i.
f%
a 4si M g.... - b M
!' ~ ~
- Y
- * * ':- )
8307120953 e30712 g.4 4 {
(gs pgj PDR ADOCK 05000289 P g
...-.:._.. :.~
^^^
"- - - - ~
^
- - - - ^ ^ - - -
.,, r.,.
never admitted that OTSG performance is a key factor to small LOCA miti-gation.
If the present OTSG secondary model in CRATT is found to be noa-conservative by the NRC (it is non-conservative), a small break re-i analysis may be required. The dual notpoint chnn>;c is & r virved 3
- w
,the largest potential impact in the lous run in both analysis and equip-ment change areas.
%e HPI System Upgrade is the recomenderdesign modification from a Licens-
.43 standpoint'. A B&W position on the need for the HPI System Upgrade could be a) Improved HPI flow splita under all conditions
.b) Less reliance on operator action for an HPI line break c) Greater margin via better HPI performance.
With the above position, the change in the OTSG 1evel assumptions in the LOCA analysis could be de-emphasized.
' N$te:
Reg'ardless o'f the fin' l fix shich is choseri for' the 205 '7A Plants,'
'a B&W must avoid additional sma11' break exposure on the operating
- plants. Our 177FA customers have just recently paid for a small i
break reanalysis. It is highly important that ECCS establish their position of SG modeling techniques; evaluation model changes, if required, should be presented as appropriate only for the B&W plant types which employ the IE0TSG's 4.
Recommended Action 1.
Inform Department Manager of Plant Design decision prior to 2/28. -
- ggg,
/
2.
Complete ECCS Feasibility Study to confirm adequacy of HPI System Fix f
no operator action, required for HPI line break - $15,000.
3/15/79 -
3.
Develop Licensing strategy and schedule analysis for revised Topical Report - $129,000. 4/01/79 - HAB I
4.
Initiate CI/A's on TVA and WPPSS to implement design change and l
formally obtain costs.
4/01/79 - LRC 5.
Develop strategy for informing backlog 205FA plant customers of change and possible cost recover. 5/01/79 - SHD fg/() =D
/ *,_s f. l.
.:w..a..x h f
/
d
.//
. 4.
//> g'/ s.
8
/
. V003' 3 2
,,7 _. _ _ _. _
l...,-
RECOMMENDATION Technient Ivaluation the HPI fluid system upgrade is recommended From a technical standpoint, scauses e
The proposed design change is a direct fix to the problan (i.e.,
present HPI flow is inadequate).
There is no impact on other safety analyses (i.e., a LOCA problem B.
is resolved with an ECCS improvement).
LOCA mitigation would no longer be dependent on AFW and the SRCI C.
(i.e., non-ECCS Systems).
The potential for futur.e overcooling events on the 205 FA Plants D.
is minimized.
,, ~
NRC review of _thivI/ECI design philosophy for' AIV. cont'rol '(pro-'
tection grade 'syste'~veTsus post 'iccident monitoring and'/ci contfoi E.
~~
system) is avcided.'
-.. a
~
2.
Cost Evaluation The HP! system design change is less expensive by $250,000.
modification is a ninf=um
~
Ine dual setpoint and NRC/ customer escalation of AFW overfill pro-design
- change, tection is highly probable. If this occurs, the C&I equipment change costs are estimated to be low and additional level taps (i.e., field in-stallation) would be required. Because of this high potential of cost l
escalation, the HPI System Upgrade is recommended.
l Cost recovery for ATW overfill is not probably sin'ce B&W is insti-analysis require "
Note:
gating the dual setpoint design to meet accidentIf the single setp sents.
- fill protection (if required) should be cost recoverable since escalation would represent a change in an accepted licensing posi-tion.
3.
Licensing From a licensing standpoint, both proposed design modifications are viewed The HPI Systen Upgrade is, however, consider,d more e
as major changes.
straight forward in that it has less impact on other analyses and systems.
The importance of OTSG 1evel on 1,0CA analysis will be readily apparent for The dual so point change is expected to raised the both proposed fixes.
obvious question as to why the hdgh SG 1evel is required, and this could B&W has provoke a NRC review of the OTSG 1evel effects on small breaks.
WS324 l
l o,. ;,
' ~
never admitted that OTSG performance is a key factor to small LOCA miti-.
If the present OTSG secondary model in CRAFT is found to be' sation.
non-conservative by the NRC (it is non-conservative), a small break. rey.
The dual setpoint change is thus visemi _co havt analysis may be required.
the largest potential impact in the long run in both analysis and equif (
ent change areas.
e
.e EFI System Upgrade is the recommended design modification.from a Licens-ing standpoint. A B&W position on the need for the EFI System Upgrade could be:
s a) Improved EFI flow spits under all conditions b) Less reliance on operator action for an EFI 3
line break c) Greater margin via better EFI performance.
With the above position, the change fa the OTSG 1evel assumptions in the Loca analysis could be de-wpha'sised.
Eagardless of the final fix which is chosen for the 205 FA plants.,
'Notet B&W aust avoid additional small brea't. exposure on the operating' l
Our.177FA customers have just recantly paid for a small
)
plants.
It is highly important that ECCS establish their break reanalysis.
position of SG modeling techniques; evaluation model changes, if -
required, should be presented as appropriaen only for the 34W plant i
types which employ the IZOTSG's l
j i
g*L
~
WU325
.-.___-__-~_,,_,,._.m,
.,__,,,,.__,,,,._,%,.m.,,-,,.,,_,,-,%.,--,,.y
_--.,-v y
- l
, 3 iJ A I L
-t
..N I - ).
j[
U
' ~
l w
- ,, 3 -
23
.c.
i s
s.3.t p.,y
- ,m
- s.3.
35
+ c ! '4e, r s s 1a u
r e ;.
- 4!e
.{ :3 "
35 s
1.
3 77 Ni 3
':-A,s.} /
.c I
h *3 g J.;..i,j ? t -
E
.j q.r l 'Pi s dy 5
!"^
g
., J g
~
s s'
El{
s{
D
- 5. i t i
^
Q..p<s. \\ '6"5 f 1.-;.#*{
P' E
r.t 'j 5 2 {e j = l (-
,3 y
q, 1.).,,
g
.e..s s " -Jg.s I e g
~
. aw s.
. a a-e w g
s,.n.. <
5'
- g g: I
, g :,
~. s g : I n,u
' /,-
w.-
o b
t'
- ..y J
,s;j j 1. i i 2.#
^a.
.I J
s
.. s o]
'f-g^,,. [,!
3 e
,s i.f iq.Ti2*.,!.f c
o.":.e n j i
]
.s, $ $ $
d e
w a
g
,,.. t4 :..t I 4 s *a
, c e w,.
r-
-. - - s 4. j -
- . 4..
1 o
e.
m.
o c
,,'g..
15ju
' a, t 41 3
s
.I La s
Lc.
z.:..,
i.
4 f
.g 3,i i [
u y*
s p*f
- iB!
}
- .4-
'k I
e..i. : 1
.!. } b i
>r < g.,
t r xe
.ae
.,..:, --.si.,
,o s.
_J!i 1.g".
g i a.a
'I r@1 g
.e
.3,n 3 y
? j i
(*.
?
r a-5 k ),
.3 $ 1 a t*
s s
e
- d4
.: a.4,.: a ss<
t, t
f--
g 1
J te.i 2
.-9.
i
.g.s n
i J:
J:
J:
~
--y Ie s
s --
... ~
* i a m
J:
J:. J:
s
,4, s.N e
o 3
g s
.J J.3,.
e
.u
.u.ti.n 3
g=
.i.
[
Tjf.
Y',' d
,g e o n e.m s,W i
t f
i' wg D
Www d4 J
b
.g a.
i f.c~ % s 3 -
- -l,, } - ' 5 '3.h b.
y g..
. \\'-
f, g
3EV ea Tj g-an
- .3 =a ]
- 5 2 4
eu
,, m
,, e a 2
- l..
lj
!,3 I,.*qB u.
I i
"1o,1 5
I e
i,s s<1 2.*.
2 U
t.
C 8
5 1.,t, g,
E sv 8
=
t l
$ Q. 5 so
,y g ;
g Z
U J
1 4g{.
8,, h f sE
- y. '
$d 3.s -
3.
) t A d ! )4 l_.
feg (1 5 J
., 4 g eg a
0 t
y
~
~'
f5
'.j(.
"., I
- .I#(
3..,
,_ _Of M C4
". 3 5, t(*
I.;.
g 35 !
..__i_.
I.
f6f&f
,I ef3
.,,i
,=,.Q 5 8 ]2 J
s.
C,7 4
((gs
,5 k
k E.M o
Mr,i j
d2 2 9 W H d
js git u-a u
l
-.. e.
ly I
t-
- s y
Em ke
.