ML20044B517
| ML20044B517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1992 |
| From: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Binz R BWR OWNERS GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206150163 | |
| Download: ML20044B517 (3) | |
Text
.-
O June 5, 1992
}
Robert D.
Binz IV, Chairman BWR Owners' Group l
Public Service Electric & Gas l
!!cpe Creek Generating Station i
P.
O.
Box 236, Mail Code N51 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
Dear Mr. Binz:
l
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STABILITY REPORT NEDO-31960 l
Enclosed are comments and questions developed during our review of l
your report NEDO-31960, "Long-Term Stability Solutions Licensing Methodology," (and Supplement 1 to that report) which describes concepts and methodologies intended as long-term solutions for i
resolution of BWR thermal hydraulic instability issues.
l These questions have been previously discussed with your stability committee.
We would appreciate your response by the end of June so that we can factor it into our long-term solution decisions.
Sincerely,
/6/
Ashok C.
Thadani, Director Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
T.
Rausch H.
Pfefferlen DISTRIBUTIOli:
i Central Files SRXB R/F AThadani Rjones SNewberry l
LPhillips r70034 HRichings HLi HRichings R/F p
b l
SRXB: DST //
SRXB:DS?r SRXB:DSTn SICB: DST D:D p(
SNEWBERRY HAJTANI l
HRICHINGS:jh LPHILLIPS RJONES 1
5/ C/92 5 /-@ 92 5/t7/92 b 5/ $ 92
)/92 DOCUMENT NAME p :_\\
zltr.hr 0
$ly
\\\\
t i
QUESTICNS ABOUT EWROG LONG TERM STABILITY SOLUTIONS LICENS!NG METHCDOLOGY AS DESCRIBED IN NEDO-31960 AND NEDO-31960 SUPPLEMENT 1 1.
In your March 26, 1992 neeting presentation on BWROG stability long tern solution option I-A, it was indicated that the proposed new control system will utilize the existing recirculation drive flow signal which is not IE but is highly reliable.
In order for the staff to make a safety determination, please provide the following infornation from those plants which are considering implementation of Options I-A or I-D.
a)
Number of pressure taps related to recirculation flow signals.
b)
Total nurber of flow transmitters available.
c)
Number of flew transmitters per flow unit.
d)
Nunber of flow units per RPS division.
e)
Flow unit comparator arrangement, f)
How is the output flev signal of the flow unit isolated?
What type of isolator is used?
g)
Describe the physical separation of the flow transmitter signals from the transmitter to the flew unit as existing.
h)
What core flow and core power indications are available to the operator in the control roon?
1)
Discuss the type of failure rate data each plant has kept for these recirculation drive flow channels?
Summarine the operating experience of these flow signal components.
Under Option I-A, with no delayed scram, what would be the frequency and criteria for review of the selected control rods to assure sufficient reactivity worth to exit the region.
In view of the uncertainty that SRI will always avoid or terminate oscillations (Ringhals incident), what
j f
operator actions or technical specification requirements are I
t proposed following SRI for each alternative application.
(
i 3.
Solution I-D is not discussed in the Supplement I repor Discu.sion on this solution during NRC/BWROG meetings have indicated the staff view that insufficient information has been presented on this solution.
If approval of this solution is desired, further information is needed to better i
j define and justify conformance to the criteria which must be satisfied to qualify individual plants for use of Solution 1-D.
This could be provided by sufficient analyses of a e
reference lead plant to demonstrate that this is a viable solution.
If the BWROG wishes to pursue Option 1-D, please i
provide sufficient information to allow completion of.our i
generic evaluation or propose an approach and schedule for submittals to implement this solution.
I 1
^
4 l
?
i
[
i r
I t
w I
i A
\\
)
i h
d
.i
. ~-
"