ML20056D942

Summary of 930707-08 Meeting W/Bnl & GE in San Jose,Ca Re Review of ABWR Ts.Meeting Attendees Listed

ML20056D942
Person / Time
Site:	05200001
Issue date:	07/30/1993
From:	Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9308190041
Download: ML20056D942 (4)

Text

. .. _ _ _ _ _

1

>R Qt C -

' UNITED STATES i

-[s

-( j* fi , j LEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoTON, D.C. 20566-0001

.t*

2 4

July 30,1993 j t

Docket No.52-001 M f APPLICANT: GE Nuclear Energy (GE) .

PROJECT: Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) l

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON THE REVIEW 0F ABWR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) 4 l

On July 7 and 8,1993, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff I' met with Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and GE, at the GE offices-in San Jose, California. The meeting attendees were as follows:

r NRC: Millard Wohl and Son Ninh 1 BNL: Pranab Samanta and Inn Kim +

GE: Cal Tang, Robert Raf*.ery, Larry Keller, and Vishu Visweswaran The meeting was focused on the GE proposed TS requirements (identified below), ,

analyses in support of these requirements, and the need to perform additional ,

analyses using the available probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model for the ,

t ABWR plant. The analyses already performed (both deterministic and probabil-istic) and those to be performed in the coming weeks, as discussed in the meeting, will be used in the review of the subject TS items by BNL and the NRC.

The GE presentation and discussions at the meeting-fccused on the following limiting condition for operation (LCO) items: ,

a) LCO 3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling System - Operating b) LC0 3.6.2.3, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Suppression Pool Cooling c) LCO 3.6.2.4, RHR Wetwell Spray d) LC0 3.7.2, Reactor Cooling Water / Reactor Service Water l e) LCD 3.8.1, Alternating Current Sources - Operating f) LC0 3.8.4, Direct Current Sources'- Operating g) LCO 3.8.7, Inverters - Operating-In addition, GE submitted.the. corresponding shutdown TS. .The discussions. j focused on'the allowed outage, time (A0T) requirements, because the surveil _  !

lance test interval requirements for. the- ABWR are almost the _ same as for the -l boiling water reactor'(BWR)/4 or BWR/6.

]

The ABWR TS generally propose larger A0Ts, especially as compared-t!o BWR/6 or l BWR/4; for exampl6, 30 days of A0T, as opposed to 7 days:for the'similar  !

situations in the conventional BWRs, 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />' as opposed to.'12 or 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. -l This proposal for relatively larger A0Ts as compared to the conventional.'BWR f f3 q 9308190041 93o73o "W -

g pggga gyY 1

a July 30,1993 plants is mainly because of the greater degree of redundancy which results in ,

relatively small impact on the plant risk level (as measured by the core damage frequency) for the LC0 conditions.

Along with the deterministic analyses, GE presented the results of sensitivity [

analyses to maintenance outage times they performed so far. These sensitivity '

analyses were carried out using the CAFTA code based on the PRA submitted as part of the standard safety analysis report. In some cases, the risk impact 1 of the equipment outage corresponding to specific LCOs, in terms of condi-tional core damage frequency (CDF) was also presented.

For the review of the proposed TS, additional PRA-based analyses of different LC0 conditions were defined. Conditional CDFs are to be calculated for each of the LCO conditions defining one or more subsystem failures for which A0Ts  ;

are proposed. These conditional CDFs are used to calculate the risk impact '

for the proposed A0T in the LC0 condition. .

Based on the preliminary list of equipment combinations from the LCOs, the GE team developed a more comprehensive list of specific component combinations.

4 This list excludes LCO 3.8.7 (inverters - operating) because inverters are not ,

modeled in the ABWR PRA. The list also excludes instrumentation and control LCOs, which are being handled, at present, by a cambination of engineering judgment and an overview risk evaluation. The review of the LCOs for invert-ers will be based on the deterministic analysis. The GE team also showed a couple of sample CAFTA runs; a run took about a couple of hours. ,

According to the list the GE team developed, .about 70 runs need to be made.

To reduce the number of runs, some attempts were made by running a couple of ,

runs and comparing the results to see if we can reduce the necessary runs by i engineering judgments. However, it was found to be difficult to skip a part of the runs because of some hidden interactions between subsystems. The GE team agreed to complete the calculations, tentatively, by July 26, 1993.

It was discussed that both deterministic and PRA-based analyses should be. -l taken into consideration in reviewing the ABWR TS requirements. The GE team indicated that especially the firewater system can be credited in the deter- a ministic analysis of the TS submittal because no credit is taken for it in' the PRA.

The risk issues with larger A0Ts were discussed. Increased risk from larger A0Ts may be encountered because of: (1) more use of A0Ts for preven-tive maintenance (PM) and (2) higher likelihood of multiple outages across systems because of the increased maintenance and testing -for a larger number of components. One of the solutions for the first problem may be to' define A0Ts separately for PM and corrective maintenance (CM), giving a shorter A0T ';

for PM and a longer A0T for CM. However, for doing this, a proper distinction between PM and CM should be made. To properly address the.second problem, 'a t

a

i i

. July 30,1993 '  ;

configuration control approach will be necessary. Although' discussed, these  ;

problems were considered to be beyond this review of ABWR TS, scheduled to be-

~

completed by August ~1993. ,-

OfcWC'vedBE Chester Poslusny, Project Manager

• Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page  !

DJSTRIBUTION:

N cket1 File.' PDST R/F DCrutchfield TMurley/FMiraglia PDR PShea' CPoslusny JNWilson RBorchardt WRussell , 12G18 SNinh- .DTang ,

SKoenick~ JMoore, 15B18 ACRS (11) J0'Brien, RES BHardin, RES LShao, RES MWohl , 11E22 0FC: LA:PDST:ADAR PM:PDST;4DAR (A)S PDST:ADAR NAME: PShea- n a3 CPoslNny:tz RBohardt DATE: 07/N9I 07A0/93 07 @ /93 0FFICAL RECORD COPY:

DOCUMENT NAME: MTSM0778.CP

GE Nuclear Energy Docket No. 52-001-  :!

-i cc: Mr. Patrick W. Marriott, Manager Mr. Joseph Quirk Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy GE Nuclear. Energy General. Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue 175 Curtner Avenue, Mail Code 782 San Jose, California 95125 San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San ' Jose, California 95125  :

i Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director, Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. Sterling Franks U.S. Department of Energy NE-42  ;

Washington, D.C. 20585 Mr. Steve Goldberg  :

Budget Examinet 725 17th Street, N.W.

Room 8002 r Washington, D.C. 20503  :

Mr. Frank A. Ross U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42  ;

Office of LWR Safety and Technology 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, Maryland 20874 Mr. Raymond Ng 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Suite 300  ;

Washington, D.C. 20006 Marcus A. Rowden, Esq. -!

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson i 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W- '

Suite 800 '

Washington, D.C. 20004 ,

Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. i 1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 j l