ML20137Q029

Forwards Summary of 970312 Meeting W/Bwrog in Rockville,Md to Discuss BWROG Proposal for Elimination of Addl Response Time Testing Requirements for Certain Instruments from Tss. List of Attendees & Affiliations Encl

ML20137Q029
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/07/1997
From:	Joshua Wilson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-691 NUDOCS 9704100102
Download: ML20137Q029 (17)

Text

. __ ___ _ ___ . , . _ _ _ _ ._....

, (.

7

.- April 7, 1997 MEMORANDUM:TO: David B. Matthews, Chit '

Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch j Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR j FROM: James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manager Original Signed By:

Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch

Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1997, WITH THE -l

) BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) TO DISCUSS THE

BWROG'S PROPOSAL FOR ELIMINATION OF RESPONSE TIME TESTING i . J

~

On March 12,'1997, the staff held a public meeting with the BWROG at NRC . -j headquarters in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the BWROG's proposal for  :

elimination of additional response time testing requirements for certain 1 instruments from. technical specifications. A list of attendees and their ,

affiliations is provided as Attachment 1. A copy of the handouts used by-the BWROG'in its presentations is provided as Attachment 2.

l 2 The BWROG described its supplemental response time testing work that was done '

!~ to address instrument loops with shorter response time requirements than were ,

previously addressed in the earlier BWROG program documented in NED0-32291. r

- At present, 14 utilities are participating in this BWROG program. The BWROG ,

provided a description of the scope and outline of the proposed changes-that would be submitted in a supplement to NED0-32291. .The BWROG also described

how. the proposed margin and boundary values would maintain conservatism. The staff indicated that it considered that the failure modes and effects -

2 analysis, and the boundary response times resulting from it, was the key issue to be addressed in the review. ,

The BWROG stated that it planned to submit a revised topical report, 4 NED0-32291, Supplement 1, in May 1997. The staff stated that once it had received the revised topical report, it would discuss the report with the  :

BWROG before issuing a request for additional information. This discussion  !

would provide an opportunity for the staff to explain any additional information needed in order for the staff to reach a conclusion of i

{ acceptability. .

After the staff approves the topical report, the BWROG expects to issue a -A j (denoting " approved") version. ,

Project No. 691  :

Attachments: As stated  !

. DISTRIBUTION w/ attachment:  ;

PUBLIC Docket PGEB r/f MSlosson PLaeser TMartin BBoger- JMauck JWermiel i /  !

'. Document Name: MEETSUM.312 nii f I

j f 0FC PGEB m ) SC:PGEB V C:10CB . C:PG N [3 I l i

NAME JHWils((sw RArchitzel JWeh DMattNw's DATE 3/#/97 3/f/97 3/h4/97 M. /ry/97 0FFIClAL RECORD COPY 97o4100102 970407 PDR PROJ l)(0

+

Y//

691 PDR w,

]-. 2_

gpgeg NRC RLE CENT {m GerY J

7 .sw:

UNITED STATES ~ ,_' .

p , ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _ ,

1. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 s

~

q, , ,

April 7 -1997 ,

~

MEMORANDUM T0: David B. Matthews, Chief .

Generic Issues and Environmental Projects' Branch '

Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR FROM:- Jame.( H. Wilson, Senior'ProjectManaher Gen',ric Issues and Environmental ProjectsiBranc MM ,

Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR l  ;

SUBJECT:

'UMMARY

, OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1997, WITH THE BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) TO DISCUSS THE ,

E9ROG'S PROPOSAL FOR ELIMINATION OF RESPONSE TIME TESTING 3

10n March 12, 1997, the staff held a public meeting with the BWR0G at NRC  !

headquarters in Rockvilie, Maryland to discuss the BWR0G's proposal for .

elimination of additional response time testing requirements for certain instruments from technical specifications. A list of attendees and their

, affiliations is provided as Attachment 1. A copy of the handouts used by the i BWROG in its presentations is provided as Attachment 2.

The BWROG described its supplemental response time testing work that was done to address instrument loops with. shorter response time requirements than were i previously addressed in the earlier BWROG program documented in NED0-32291 At present, 14 utilities are participating in this BWROG program. The BWROG '

provided a description of the scope and outline of the proposed changes that I would be submitted in a. supplement to NED0-32291. The BWROG also described  ;

how the proposed margin and boundary values would maintain conservatism. The staff indicated that it considered that the failure modes and effects analysis, and the boundary response times resulting from it, was the key issue  ;

to be addressed in the review.

The~ BWROG stated that it planned to submit a revised topical report, NE00-32291, Supplement I, in May 1997. The staff stated that once it had received the revised topical report, it would discuss the report with the

. BWROG before issuing a request for additional information. This discussion

.would provide an opportunity for the staff to explain any additional.

information needed in order for the staff to reach a conclusion of acceptability.

After the staff approves the topical report, the BWROG expects to issue a -A (denoting " approved") version. j i

I Project No. 691 '

Att'achments: As stated l

1 .

i w

I l

LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MEETING WITH BWROG HELD IN i

.ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ON MARCH 12, 1997 I

HAME AFFILIATION J. Wermiel NRC J. Mauck' NRC P. Loeser NRC J. H. Wilson NRC D. Alexander Detroit Edison C. Price PA Power & Light G. King GA Power / Southern Nuclear G. Swihart Com Ed D. Boucher ' Niagara Mohawk T. Greene GE Nuclear Energy D. Reigel GE Nuclear Energy i

Attachment 1

. b'L s-k System Analyses For The Simplification Of Selected Response Time Testing Requirements .

Planned Licensing Topical Report

Pmpamd by GE Nuclear Energy for the-BWR Owners' Group Response Time Testing Committee March 12,1997 Attachment 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ . - - . -. - . _ _ , ~ - .- - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _

4 t

Simplification Of Selected RT Testing Requirements  ;

a Planned Licensing Topical Report  :

)

Background

Extension of NEDO-32291-A

! - Addressed RPS (sensors),IAS and ECCS

- Addressed "long response" functions

- (10 seconds and greater) 1

- Addressed sensors

I t

i l Scope of current study Includes intermediate response time loops

. - RPS and IAS (MSIV)

- 330 ms to 1050 ms response requirements j

Does not include fast response time loops

- 100 ms or less

- e.g., APR M high, Turbine Stop Valve closure Does not include sensors

f I

Process used '

Component EMEA and expenence review Establish " bounding response times" (BRT)

Sum BRT for loop (less sensor)

Add BRT for sensor Compare total to loop requirement Confirm " defense in depth"

___._._ ____._____._____-_.______________________-_____.____m_

__ _ _ _ . _ _- - __ _ = _

L Flow charts from report Response Time Testing Evaluation Process '

Component Evaluation Process .

Loop Analysis Process Application / Implementation Process i

i

. NEDO-32291, Supplement 1

'"Eledinstru"5nt i j loops to be evaluated j Gather plant specific loop information (Section 5) 1F Identify components in selected loops (Appendix B and Section 6) 1F Perform component

- evaluations .

(Figure 4-2)  !

Perform loop analysis Demonstrate defense (typicalloops) in depth (Figure 4-3) (Section 6.3)

Document Study Results and Conclusions (Sections 6 and 7)

..........n...........

Perform plant specific j j loop evaluations  :

. . . . . $I.Y.re 4-p,), , , , , , , j Figure 4-1 Response Time Testing Evaluation Process 4-4

t P-

- NEDO-32291, Supplement 1

'I i

1.

Group components -

into sets by sinularity Evaluate Mfgr & designinfo, and operating experience for components Perform FMEAs for components 1

Identify credible failures that affect response time 4,

Identify alternate tests and methods to detect component 1

failures that could affect response time Perform similarity analysis for components not directly i analyzed by FMEA 3,

Establish bounding response .

l times for components for credible, )

nonecetable failures l 4

iF Establish criteria for j applying component bounding l '

response times inloop analysis 4

Figure 4-2.' Component Evaluation Process  !

(Appendix B) i i

.4-5 i

n. , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - . _ _ .

i

, NEDO-32291, Supplement 1 Identify unique groups

. of components in loops, less sensors Add component bounding response times (BRT) '

for each unique group of components to get " loop logic" BRT 1I Compare loop logie BRT to typical allowabic loop response times 4,

Identify maximum allowable sensor BRT for each component group Figure 4-3. Loop Analysis Process l J

(Appendix C) i I

i l

1 j

4-6 l

. NEDO-32291, Supplement 1 r P

l Identify plant specific instrument l ,

l instrument loop to be evaluated

..........r...........

Identify plant specific l l _

l componentsinloops l

,............v............

. Compareloop type and l

{ componentstothoseevaluated :

. . ....l

. . . .i.n.th. e. .B.W.. R. O.G. s.t.u.

.............r...... ' ..................

' Perform supplemental:

Components covered? No l . . . Loop C.o.vered?. . . . . .l 7 loop or component l analysis l l

ye, .....;.............

...t..................+...,

l Compare allowable sensor BRT:

l to loop sensor allocation.

l Compare plant procedures and l

{ design to application criteria. {

. . ....r...... ...............,

Criteria met? lNo Retain RTT l

j. '

Yes

...t......................

l Surveillances other than RTT l L l are adequate. Deletion of {

separate R1Tisjustified.

........................l p

.............C............

l Revise Tech Specs per plant l l procedures and submit to the l l NRC for review and approval l a

Figure 4-4. Application / Implementation Process (Section 8) b 47

i . .

Outline of Report Executive Summary

- Introduction

- Benefits

Study Process and Methodology ,

Instrument Loops Included l

t 4

Outline of Report (cont.)

i a

+

Study Results

- Conclusions Application Guidelines  ;

Supporting Appendices

- Detailed analysis

- ISTS markup 1

Conclusions

Undetected response time degradation can be bounded

. Surveillance other than RTT can detect a

significant increase in response times For the loops evaluated, surveillances other than RTT provide adequate assurance

-f

n. .. . . . . ..

Project No. 691 Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group cc: K. P. Donovan, Chairman '

Boiling Water. Reactors Group Centerior Energy Perry Power Plant MC A210 P. O. Box 97 Perry, OH 44081 C. D. Terry Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point-2 PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 D. B. Fetters PECO Energy Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

Wayne, PA 19087 L. A. England Entergy Operations Inc.

PO Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 K. K. Sedney GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Ave, M/C 182 San Jose, CA 95125 T. J. Rausch Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place, 4th Floor ETWIII Downers Grove, IL 60515