ML20032E787
| ML20032E787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, River Bend, Clinton, 05000447  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1981 |
| From: | Faulkner H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111230156 | |
| Download: ML20032E787 (7) | |
Text
vb5h
~
?lg7.,,ut A
- lL.3j ;
y nC!} '\\1 y
~-l E3 NOV131981a 7,
9 NOV 3 1981 d W8 - ammu O'
cc e as m s
n, f) o,
- 9' Docket Mos.:
50 a40/441 N MIVf' STM 50-447 50-159/459 DESIG'IAh zu 41?AL 50 461/462 1
\\
ceti f Md Ty h. 'g.3
,1.1. Qof
?'EPOTfDU?1 FOR:
J. R. tiiller, Chief Standardi7ation A Special Projects Branch Division of Licensino FROM:
H. F. Faulkner, Project Manacer Standardization A Special Projects Branch Division of Licensino SUPJECT:
LRG II-SU""ARY Of t'EETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1991 A noetinq between the LRG II working group and the HRC staf f was held on Octcher ?3,1091, in P,ethesda, "aryland. The purrose of the meetino was to nrovide URC co ments on the resolution bases and positions for the L".G II issues. The meetino was attanded by representatives of Illinois Power Co pany, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Corpany, Gulf States Utilities Co'rany, General Electric Corpany, and Kt'C, Inc. An attendence list is attached as Enclosur91.
The docunent providinn the bases for discussion at the rieeting was " LPG II Morkinc Papers, Corpilation of Issues with Pesolution Bases and LRG II Positions" dated October 9,1981.
SEB Two issues, loads and load combinations and fluid / structure interaction i
effects, wera succested as potential possibilities to add to the LRG 11 issua list. Theso two iteris renain unresolved on Grand Gulf. The ?mC staff he? loves that these itens can be generically addressed and are t
applicable to all of the LRG II plants. LRG II agreed to considor the issues and inforn us if they acree to add the~.
ICSP ICSR-1:
In connaction with the supplementary infor ation provided by LEG II, we were asked to review the raterial and provide a response. Bob Stronq of GE is the appronriate contact on this iten.
I OFFICE )
sunsaur)
~ " " * * ~ ' *
- "" ~
'""~~~~
" ~ '"~"*
" ~ " " " " ~ "
811123o156 811109 paaoocxosooooo.........
PDROFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-m*o nac ronu ais oow nncu oaa
V i
NOV 9 1981
.2-ICSB-2:
Grand Gulf acceptance was bned on more than on-line capability for frequent nonitoring of the trip channel. Additionally, Grand Gulf has redundant interlocks on each valve and administrative controls to preclude opening at high pressure.
ICSB-3:
Because of structural considerations (see CSB-1), this item i's no longer a safety concern.
i ICSB-4:
4 l
GE scope of supply may be common, but LRG II will have to evaluate and address BOP aspects of the issue.
1 GIB Recently, the staff detemined that the material provided on the CESSAR docket 4
that addressed generic issues was not acceptable.
It is the staff's belief 4
that there is probably more being done on these issues by the industry than is actually being reported on specific license applications. Because this is i
a generic group, we anticipate a quality response. Clinton has recently '
upgraded its submittal on this topic, and this naterial will be the precedent for subnittals by the other participants.
AEB LRG II proposes to detemine the pomissible itSLIV bypass leakage rate based on a Tech Spec dose limit. This approach is acceptable to HRC. The specific leakage linits will be detemined separately by each LRG participant.
RSB RSB-2(c):
This is an ASB review item and the LRG II issue list will be revised accordingly.
1
.......am..
OFFICE) a.
am..-=.=a-.
.aa.~"*"*"~""
SURNoME)
..... * * =.........
DATE )
1
~
OFFiChL RECORD COPY usopo: mi-an-m nac ronu sia om Nacu o24o
4 NOV 9 1981 P.SB-7:
itaterial (Enclosure 2) was provided by the staff that addresses the vortex issue for Grand Gulf.
It was stated that the sunp strainers-for the LRG II plants are believed to be located lower than at Grand Gulf, and, therefore, they will be further below the surface of the suppression pool.
RSB-11:
It was pointed out that credit nay not be taken for the turbine bypass systen in the TCPR calculation for load rejection or turbine trip events.
RSB-13:
This is a new iten to be added to the LRG II issue list. The subject is interlocking RCS pressure to prevent opening of low pressure ECCS systen valves before pressure is below the ECCS design pressure.
l'EP MEH-?:
It was pointed out that Clinton and River Bend are 218 inch reactor vessel designs and that Perry and GESSAR are 238 inch designs. Consequently, reactor internals vibration testing and qualification will be addressed for Clinton and River Bend separately from Perry and GESSAR.
It is noted that GE does-not intend to submit a single topical report addressing internals vibration testing for BUR /6's.
CPB CPB-3:
The staff disagrees with the proposed position, and believes that LRG 11 should do periodic friction flow testing or direct measurenents of the control rod channels.
CPB-5:
We will require sone form of visual inspection surveillance program, and if denineralizers are used, they should be deep or nixed bed.
OFFICE)
............-a.a.
. m m.a m... m a m aum=aa~~"~
""a""a"""*"*
SURNAME)
.........a.........
....a........a....
a.--aa.a"..~~~
.aa""~aa"-"a
" " " " " " " ~ ~ " * * *
...............a...
................. ~..
- ~.. ~.. - ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ " - " ~ ~ -
~ " - " - ~ ~ " "
oarE >
inc rosu sta poen nacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usow mi-az4ee
4-NOV 9 1981 CPB 6:
A coeting is being arranged tentatively for October 29 in which the LRG will present the results of their risk assessnent study of utilizing in-core thermoccuples. LEG II stated evnhatically that the issue of in-core therno-couples should be addressed through the utilities' BUR owner's group and LP.G, and not through GE. Althouah GE perforned the risk assessuent study, this was done as a contractor to the LRG.
CPB-ll:
The proposed position is not acceptable. We desire results from stability tests to be performed at Vercont Yankee.
If these plants are sinilar in stahility to Grand Gulf, the same licensino conditions that will be imposed on Grand Gulf can be expected by the LRG 11 participants.
MTER The GE document " Analysis of General Electric Designed Welded Flued Head Fitting at Containment Penetration Assembly and Provisions for Fondestructive Examination of Flued Head Fitting to Precess Pipe Weld for BUR /6 Mark 111-218, 23R and 251 Plants" was provided to the group and is included as Enclosure 3.
It was pointed out that the subject of inservice inspection of welded flued heads received limited discussion. The staff needs nore technical data and more details of the Laguna Verde demonstration.
It is our plan to have an NRC contractor, EGG Idaho, review the pre and inservice inspection programs for Clinton and to visit the plant to review stean line containment penetrations directly.
HFS l
HFS-1:
We expect all licensed applicants to perforn a loss of offsite and on-site AC nower test for training purposes.
It was noted that this is a simulated test, not necessarily a loss of all AC power.
HFS-2:
A letter to applicants has been drafted requesting a cornitment by utilities as to whether they are goinq to use the long-term or short-tern approach for developino energency cperating procedures. Grand Gulf has opted for the i
short-term approach while Clinton has recently co-mitted to the long-tern approach. The staff indicated that the LRG II applicants would save review l
tire if they could standardize their operating and maintenance procedures.
l l
OFFICE )
suReur )
l ome)
DIRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024a OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY usa m m i-m m o
i
-S-NOV 9 198 ;
HFS-3:
LRG II was informed that they should train operators and prepare their technical specifications utilizing the second scale to be added to the fuel zone level indicators. In their submittal on this issue, they should describe how the.instrunent and scale will be used.
There is an interest by HRC in perfoming generic human factor reviews of control rooms to the extent possible. Perry and River Bend indicated that their control roons are similar, whereas, Clinton and GESSAR utilize the Nucienet concept. Perry and River Bend will review their control roons and infora us if any panels are identical for both plants.
RAB RAB-1:
The staff would like whole body as well as beta doses and an indication of the partition factors.
RAB-2:
LRG II was recuested to do a penetration review and commit to add shielding to keep doses ALARA.
RAB-4:
The proposed approach can be reviewed generically, but specific aspects will have to be reviewed for each plant.
CSB CSB-1:
Bechtel is scheduled to review and discuss the SRV test results fron Kuo Sheng soon. The NRC resolution of SRV loads will be documented in HUREG-0802 which is expected to be published by the end of the year.
In connection with LOCA loads, the staff is awaiting GE responses to the HRC position.
CSD-2:
It was stated that the BVR owner's group plans to revelop a generic solution to this problen, which currently is to utilize a distributed ignition systen.
However, each application will address the hydrogen control licensing issue i
separately or through a licensing review group such as LRG II.
l orrice) suonas >
omy NRC FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY -
t,som mi-us.o
. l
w, y
hj
?
o
~
. NOV ')
1981 ASB ASE-2:
Items 3<1 and 3_1 of Annondix R of 10 CFR 50 nust he net.
It would be advantageous to adopt a uniforn approach for safe shutdown systens, equipnent an': instrunentation. LRG II f ndicated that this issue nust i
still be reviewed by then to firmly identify the generic aspects of the issue. A copy of the staff's evaluation of fire protection of safe shutdown capability for Grand Gulf was provided to the participants (Enclosure 4).
CHEB fiaterial describing jet cump discharge sampling locations that had recently been proposed by Ferni 2, was provided (Enclosure 5). This proposal is not accentable because below 1% power representative sanples of the core can not be obtained from these locations. Additional material from Midland was provided that conceptually looks promising (Enclosure 6).
SCHEDULING LRG II was encouraged to prepare and subnit a schedule of the dates that they expect to provide subnittals to HRC. The group indicated that they expect to subnit resolutions in three separate groups. The Clinton SER is scheduled for issuance in early January 1982. Because of the closeness of the date, the value and importance of providing a schedule was enphasized.
H. J. Faulkner, Project !!anager Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As Stated n
/kNb
~
DL:SSlG*
DL:5$j%l y(f"U{ner/Ec
~ Jiii TE F " '
- C'>
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
sununue>
.....h,..........
..1../...l./. 8.1......
.11../..V)../..R.1...
1 om>
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usem e-mua unc ronu m oc eoj uacu c24o 1
MEETING SUt'.*AR DISTRISPTION LRG II 6cket Vi.le3 I AE Region I NRC PDR I&E Region '.I Local PDR I&E Region III SSPB Reading I&E Region IV TERA I AE Region V NSIC H. Faulkner TIC H. Williams E. Case i
D. Houston D. Eisenhut
.R. Perch R. Purpl e J. Miller E. Hughes 3SPB LA/M. Service T. Novak Receptionist S. Varga R..Boyd, KMC T. Ippolito R. Clark SERVICE LISTS FOP.:
Clinton J. Stol z Perry R. Tedesco-River Bend B. Youngblood GESSAR II A. Schwencer F. Piraglia K. Kniel E. Adensam C. Anderson G. Lainas J. Read D. Crutchfield T. Collins B. Russell R. Bosnak s' <
R. Vollmer 5, N. Nou R. Mattson C. Berlinger S. Hanauer M. Hum T. Murl ey A. Ramey-Smith J. Knight R. Ramirez W. Johnston W. Kennedy D. Ziemann D. Muller M. Lamastra P. Check M. Fields W. Kreger F. Etawila L. Rubenstein Sch eder p," Fio ante ACRS (16)
I&E (3)
OSD (7)
OELD V. Moore
.