Text

Informs That NRC Reviewing AP600 TS (08/96-amend 0) Included W/Rev 9 to AP600 Ssar.Requests That Comments Be Included in Open Item Tracking Sys So That Status & Disposition of Items Can Be Tracked
	ML20134B772
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	01/29/1997
From:	Huffman W; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Liparulo N; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
	NUDOCS 9701310079
	Download: ML20134B772 (7)
	v • d • e

.

- - - ~ ~ -

I Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager i

Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 i

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL COMENTS ON THE AP600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS)

Dear Mr. Liparulo:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the AP600 technical specifications (08/96-Amendment 0) which were included with Revision 9 to the AP600 standard safety analysis report.

In a letter to Westinghouse dated i

December 24, 1996, the staff provided initial comments on the AP600 TS with a note that the review was not yet complete and additional comments could be expected. The Emergency Protection and Radiation Protection Branch and the' Electrical Engineering Branch have now completed their preliminary reviews of the AP600 TS and their comments are enclosed with this letter.

As stated in our previous letter, the review of the AP600 technical specifica-tions is not yet complete and additional comments may result as the review is completed. We suggest that Westinghouse provide a draft markup of AP600 TS i

where it concludes that changes to TS based on the staff's comments are appropriate. Westinghouse should provide written explanation to the staff for those comments that it will not incorporate into the TS. We also request that these comments be included in the open item tracking system so that the status and disposition of these items can be tracked.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at (301) 415-1141.

Sincerely, original signed by:

William C. Huffman, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003

Enclosure:

As stated l

e ge i

DISTRIBUTION:

3 /

iDocket File PDST R/F TMartin PUBLIC DMatthews TRQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson JMoore, 0-15 B18 WDean, 0-17 G21 ACRS (11)

CGrimes, 0-13 AChu, 0-13 CMiller, 0-10 D4 REmch, 0-10 D4 JLee, 0-10 D4 JCalvo, 0-7 E4 DThatcher, 0-7 E4 NTrehan, 0-7 E4 DOCUMENT NAME: A:TS-MORE.CMT n

.e ma u

m m. m c - cm -mow.n.ch no.new.

r - cm we.n.ch-.au.new... v - no em 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM TSB:ADRR TSB:ADPRm l

D:PDST:DRPM l l

NAME WCHuffmants4 N %Chu 4t&

CIGrimes k TRQuay i n DATE l A15/97

/ /yX/97 r /,//97 I h4 /97

^"ICIAL RECORD COPY 9701310079 970129 PDR ADOCK 05200003 E

PDR

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP500 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road

)

P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 i

Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Mr. B. A. McIntyre Advanced Reactor Program Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 i

Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 j

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 1

Ms. Lynn Connor Mr. John C. Butler Doc-Search Associates l

Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 3

Energy Systems Business Unit j

Box 355 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager l

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 LMR and SBWR Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 4

i Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy i

Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 q

Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 l

Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

4 U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott i

NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 1

Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. S. M. Modro PWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer AP600 Certification NE-50 19901 Germantown Road

)

Germantown, MD 20874 e

d

. = -.

5 i

j j

ENERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RADIATION PROTECTION BRANCH CONNENTS CONCERNING WESTINGHOUSE AP600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (1) Section 1.1, Definition, DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133 i

Add a sentence at the end of paragraph "T1ssidsselsssrsiss fscteFi7siid ?foRthi siM416si kti6n ishall? beithose411 s ted 41ntICRP7 P-hblication130$ list.ts]fosiintaks sfiRadionsclides]byjWorkers; ~"

i AM kissil" 4

I (2) Section B 3.4.8, RCS Operational Leakage, APPLICABLE SAFETY ANALYSES Revise last sentence to read "The d::: cen:

r::alting fr=

"ferene:3.M:e::idssign

$50 000id;;t W E l^F0d :d,in.ltingIfrosia! postulated [ balls _iden.

radio 16gitalsconsequences Lresu SL8tacc t

and[SGTRiat"theexclukionfarea;andriowl 4

ind fradi stisn7eschosureitoicontEoli foam? popul at i on : zone': bosndarl e s operatoMarerprovided '

$sctioriW15j1!5tand.jil.5;6j3ioflChapter;15'; off thej AP600 ;5SAR; ^iin respectivelyi" J

(3) Section B 3.4.11, RCS Specific Activity, BACKGROUND i

1 Third Paragraph l

i Revise third paragraph to read ".. offsite indfdontro17rson l.

sp#stk doses due to postulated desjbn basis; accidents..."

l Fifth Paragraph a

Revise fifth paragraph to read ".. the offsite ihd^fontr619Foon j

5);&itsFdoses..."

' ^ ~

'~~

j Seventh paragraph 4

Reviseseventhparagraphtoread"..siteboundaryind[dohtrol l

roomfoperatog doses.."

(4) Section 3.6.9, Ph Adjustment, SR 3.6.9.1 8

Add a bracket around 145 ft of TSP to indicate that this number is subject to the final resolution of source term related issues Add a new surveillance requirement as SR 3.6.9.2 "RiplaEsithe

@itidinii65a(hs)CTSPMil[thelbskets." Add a frequency requirement 6

as;(120;nont Enclosure

o j

(5)

Section B 3.6.9, Ph Adjustment, BACKGROUND, Second Paragraph i

Add a clause to read " Chemical addition is necessary to counter the effects of the boric acid contained in the safety injection supplies iWdiitpiW6dThydr6th16ricTicidiTppodshedibi^Wadiolysis Edyfolysi{gMectrjcicab]elpisulation. ~

(6) Section B 3.7.4, Secondary Specific Activity, APPLICABLE SAFETY ANALYSES Revise the last sentence to read "The accident analysis, based on this and other assumptions, shows that the radiological conse-

$quences of the SLS d:LBMtiths7edl6sideTiFei?idissTpopulit iod n:t :::::d the 'Jnit E?S li=it: h?b~~stulatsd inithin?thelacceptance*criterlatiniSRPlSsetions/15!11,5ftAppendix A J

hadlwi thi ni the;iesposure.:gu idel inejyQueslTo fjl01CFRJ.Part150.0347 (6)

Section B 3.7.5, Spent Fuel Pool Water Level, APPLICABLE SAFETY ANALYSES Revise second sentence of first paragraph "The re:elt:nt 2 h: r d::: per per:en :t th: : le:ica are: b end:ry i

n ::::pt:ble fr00tiOO 0iM^ 401^3090^t0i00 0-it0E l. The desigrubasistradio-i isgicaliconsequencesiresuIting from a1 postulated:: fuel l handling t

accidentiat:!:thelexclusion arearand 1ow population lzonelboundarles andlradiationj.exposuref tof controliroom operator;arer ithinithe

~.

w do se ::: val ue s; provided 11 n : Sect i on ;15. 7. 4 ; o fL Ch ap.te r:i l51o ff theJ AP600 SSAR."

4 (7)

Section 5.5.9, Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program Delete the bracket around the maximum allowable primary contain-I ment leak rate number. This leak rate, in conjunction with offsite j

and control room air intake relative concentrations, is used for the AP600 design basis radiological consequences assessments.

a

'O 4

2 1

o ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH COMMENTS CONCERNING WESTINGHOUSE AP600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Section 3.8 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS 3.8.1 DC Sources - Operating ACTIONS Ad Completion Time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months to " Restore de electrical power subsystem to operable status" is not in accordance with NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants." The STS specifies completion time of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months .

Westinghouse states in the Background Section that with p ssive/ fail-safe design, the risk associated with the loss of one Class IE de subsystem is similar to the loss of one ac supply for a conventional unit.

The 72-hour completion time is reasonable based on engineering judgemet balancing the risks of operation without one de subsystem against the risk of forced shutdown.

The staff has evaluated this response and concluded the following:

A conventional unit has redundant Class IE emergency diesel generators and at least two offsite power sources to the onsite Class 1E distribution system to support the Completion Time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months cited by Westinghouse.

The only Class IE power for the AP600 design are the de system and the vital (UPS) ac system.

Therefore, the comparison to conventional ac power sources does not provide a basis to support the much longer Completion Time.

3.8.3 Inverters - Operating ACTIONS A.1 The completion time of 168 hours0.00194 days 0.0467 hours 2.777778e-4 weeks 6.3924e-5 months to " Restore inverter to operable status" is not in accordance with NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications -

Westinghouse Plants." The STS specifies a completion time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months .

Westinghouse states in the Background Section that the 168-hour time limit is based upon engineering judgement, taking into consideration the time required to repair an and the additional risk to which the unit is exposed because of the inverter inoperability.

The staff has evaluated this response and concluded that Westinghouse has not provided enough added justification to increase the Completion Time from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months to 168 hours0.00194 days 0.0467 hours 2.777778e-4 weeks 6.3924e-5 months for the AP600 design. The bases provided by Westinghouse appears to be no different from that for conventional plants.

3

i 3.8.5 Distribution Systems - Operating l

ACTIONS M

t l

The completion time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months W the completion time of 144 hours0.00167 days 0.04 hours 2.380952e-4 weeks 5.4792e-5 months from i

discovery of failure to meet the LCO to " Restore ac instrument and control bus j

to operable status" is not in accordance with NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical i

Specifications - Westinghouse Plants." The STS specifies a completion time of j

8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months d a completion time of 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months from discovery of failure to meet the LCO, to restore ac instrument and control bus to operable status.

j J

}

Westinghouse states in the Background Section that with passive / fail-safe design, the risk associated with the loss of one Class IE ac instrument and 1

control bus is similar to the loss of one ac supply for a conventional unit.

The 72-hour completion time is reasonable based on engineering judgement i

balancing the risks of operation without one ac instrument and control bus l

against the risk of forced shutdown.

The staff has evaluated this response and concluded the following:

}

A conventional unit has redundant Class IE emergency diesel generators and at i

least two offsite power sources to the onsite Class IE distribution system to j

support the Completion Time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months cited by Westinghouse. The only Class l

IE power for the AP600 design are the de system and the vital (UPS) ac system.

l Therefore, the comparison to conventional ac power sources does not provide a i

basis to support the much longer Completion Time.

ACTIONS M

The completion time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months W the completion time of 144 hours0.00167 days 0.04 hours 2.380952e-4 weeks 5.4792e-5 months from discovery of fail 9re to meet the LC0 to " restore dc electrical power distribution subsystem to operable status" is not in accordance with NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants." The STS specifies a completion time of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months d a completion time of 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months from discovery of failure to meet the LCO, to restore dc electrical power distribution subsystem to operable status.

Westinghouse states in the Background Section that with passive / fail-safe design, the risk associated with the loss of one Division is similar to the loss of one ac supply for a conventional unit. The 72-hour completion time is reasonable based on engineering judgement balancing the risks of operation without one ac instrument and control bus against the risk of forced shutdown.

The staff has evaluated this response and concluded the following:

A conventional unit has redundant Class IE emergency diesel generators and at least two offsite power sources to the onsite class IE distribution system to support the Completion Time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months cited by Westinghouse. The only Class IE power for the AP600 design are the de system and the vital (UPS) ac system.

Therefore, the comparison to conventional ac power sources does not provide a basis to support the much longer Completion Time.

4

1 3.8.7 Battery Cell Parameters ACTIONS A.1 A completion time of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months to " Verify pilot electrolyte level and float voltage meet Table 3.8.7-1 Category C limits" is not in accordance with NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants." The STS specifies a completion time of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

Westinghouse states in the Background Section that 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months provide time to inspect the electrolyte level and to confirm the float voltage of the pilot cells. Eight hours is considered a reasonable amount of time to perform the required verification.

The staff has evaluated this response and concluded that Westinghouse has not provided enough basis to increase the completion time from I hour to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months .

i 4

.

ML20134B772

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Liparulo:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu