ML20141A313

Forwards Followon Questions Re Westinghouse AP600 Initial Test Program.Portions of Application Requested to Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Does Not Contain Info for Which Exempt Sought

ML20141A313
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	05/14/1997
From:	Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
NUDOCS 9706200220
Download: ML20141A313 (8)

Text

. .. _ _ - - ._ .

'Cak& Wit l @ U00 '

g 4 UNITED STATES

, g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001 l

4 4***** May 14, 1997 l

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westirqhouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 l

SUBJECT:

FOLLOWON QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WESTINGHOUSE AP500 INITIAL TEST l PROGRAM (ITP) 1 I

Dear Mr. Liparulo:

As a result of its review of the June 1992, application for design certifica-tion of the AP600, the staff has determined that it needs additional informa- l tion. Specifically, the enclosure to this letter contains requests for l additional information concerning the AP600 ITP resulting from a review done l by the Containment Systems and Severe Accident Branch. I You have requested that portions of the information submitted in the June 1992, application for design certification be exempt from mandatory public disclosure. While the staff has not completed its review of your i request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790, that portion of i the submitted information is being withheld from public disclosure pending the l staff's final determination. The staff concludes that these followon ques- l tions do not contain those portions of the information for which exemption is I sought. However, the staff will withhold this letter from public disclosure for 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to allow Westinghouse the opportunity to verify the staff's conclusions. If, after that time, you do not request that all or portions of the information in the enclosures be l withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, this letter l will be placed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room.

l MICBHE8 COMI i

goou

g cv%y b

er 9706200220 970514 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A PDR

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo May 14, 1997 If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at (301) 415-1132.

Sincerely, original signed by:

Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager l Standardization Project Directorate

! Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003 l

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page DlSTRIBUTION:

• Enclosure to be held for 30 days

• 0ccket File PDST R/F MSlosson PUBLIC SWeiss TRQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson JMoore, 0-15 B18 WDean, 0-17 G21 ACRS (11) BGramm, 0-9 Al MSnodderly, 0-8 H7 i JPeralta, 0-9 Al EThrom, 0-8 H7 JKudrick, 0-8 H7 l RLong, 0-8 H7 i

l i

5 DOCUMENT NAME: A:SCSB ITP.RAI 4 To receive a copy of thle document, Mete in the box: *C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment,'snclosure "N* .= No copy TFFICE PM:PDST:DRPM ..j BC:HQMB:DRCH F 0:PDST:DRPM l NAME JMSebrosky:sq#4 RGramm P(, TRQuay AW DATE 05/N/97 Y 05/lt/97 05/\A/97

] 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i . _ .

a .-  !

I i Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 ,

1 J cc: Mr. B. A. McIntyre Ms. Cindy L. Haag l Advanced Plant safety & Licensing Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing  !

! Westinghouse Electric Corporation Westinghouse Electric Corporation i i

Energy Systems Business Unit Energy Systems Business Unit l P.O. Box 355 Box 355 l Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 l J

Mr. M. D. Beaumont Mr. S. M. Modro Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Westinghouse Electric Corporation Lockheed Idaho Technologies Ccepany One Montrose Metro Post Office Box 1625

11921 Rockville Pike Idaho Falls, ID 83415 )

Suite 350 I Rockville, MD 20852  !

Enclosure to be distributed to the following addressees after the result of the proprietary evaluation is received from Westinghouse

1 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Ms. Lynn Connor l Advanced Reactor Programs DOC-Search Associates 4

Nuclear Energy Institute Post Office Box 34

!: 1776 Eye Street, N.W. Cabin John, MD 20818 4

Suite 300 )

Washington, DC 20006-3706 Mr. Robert H. Buchholz i GE Nuclear Energy Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781

{. LMR and SBWR Programs San Jose,.CA 95125 i GE Nuclear Energy

175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Mr. Sterling Franks San Jose, CA 95125 U.S. Department of Energy i

NE-50 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq. 19901 Germantown Road

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott Germantown, MD 20874 i 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer 2

AP600 Certification Mr. Frank A. Ross NE-50  !

j U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 19901 Germantown Road l Office of LWR Safety and Technology Germantown, MD 20874 i 19901 Germantown Road i

! Germantown, MD 20874 l

\ )

> Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager  !

PWR Design Certification l Electric Power Research Institute i 3412 Hillview Avenue l Palo Alto, CA 94303 i

l Followon Ouestions on the AP600 Initial Test Proaram Containment Systems and Severe Accident Branch Coments Questions 260.118 throuah 260,130 apoly to Section 14.2.9.1.4 Passive Containment Coolina System (PCS) Testina 260.118 The' following is a general comment on Section 14.2.9.1.4. The l purpose of the testing in this section is stated in terms of tne '

safety-related function "to' transfer heat from inside containment to i the environment."

l Additional testing objectives need to be incorporated into the i Initial Test Program (ITP) to validate the expected PCS wetting  ;

characteristics. Additional testing objectives need to be incor- l porated into the ITP to validate the overall heat transfer charac- )

teristics used in the design basis accident evaluation model which  !

are dependent on the as-built structures. (RAls 260,119 through l 260.130 are specific examples of the above general con. ment). j 260.119 The testing purpose needs to be expanded. It needs to be clear that there are distinct periods (three) of flow which need to M evaluated as well as the period of performance, 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

260.120 The passive containment cooling system water storage tank (PCCWST) is now also used as a safety-related makeup source for the spent i fuel pool (see SSAR Section 6.2.2, Revision 11, February 28, 1997, page 6.2-21). This shoula be stated under Purpose, as is the fire protection function. Also, the description of the new, isolated fire protection. tank within the PCCWST should be provided. Appro-priate testing for the spent fuel pool makeup function needs to be developed and referenced in the Initial Test Program.

260.121 Under prerequisites, the quantity of water available in the PCCWST needs to reflect an amount sufficient to demonstrate that at the minimum level (volume) specified in the technical specifications, the PCS will provide at least 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of continuous cooling water.

260,122 Under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, the reference to Section 6.2 should be limited to Section 6.2.2, " Passive Containment Cooling System," only. This test does not cover the other sections.

Enclosure i

I

1 260.123 Under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, the reference to

" appropriate design specifications" is unacceptable. SSAR Sec-

tion 6.2.2, specifically Section 6.2.2.2.4, " System Operation," l needs to identify the relevant design specifications which are i

directly verified by test. At a minimum these include, for each j flow phase: I

a. The minimum acceptable flow rate for each flow phase, as measured just prior to the uncovery of each stand pipe,

b. The minimum acceptable water coverage area on the vessel side wall near the upper annulus drain elevation for each flow phase, and the uniformity of the coverage around the circum-ference of the vessel.

c. The time period for each flow phase, which considers the design objective of providing cooling water for a period of at least 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in three flow phases to account for the reduction in the amount of heat to be removed during each phase. I 1

260.124 Heat removal requires an adequate water film on the vessel exterior surface (sufficiently thick to assure stability based on the design basis accident evaluation model), as noted in SSAR Sec- I tion 6.2.2.2.4. A non-invasive method for approximating the film '

thickness during each flow phase needs to be included in the Initial Test Program. Based on the known water delivey flow rate and the water coverage area, near.the upper annulus o,ains, a method which measures the time for "a water particle" to travel from the vessel spring line to the upper annulus drain can be used to estimate the average film thickness over the covered vessel side wall.

260,125 Under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, c), references to item a. and c. under RAI 260.123 need to be incorporated.

260.126 Under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, c), the text refers to the PCCWST " drain" flowpath. SSAR Section 6.2.2 refers to the PCCWST " outlet" piping or " discharge" piping. In other descriptions, for example the technical specifications, references are made to the PCCWST " delivery" flowpath (piping). There needs to be one term which is consistently used to identify the PCS piping which provides the cooling water to the distribution buc-ket.

260,127 Under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, d), reference to item b. under RAI 260.123 needs to be incorporated.

l l

• l 260.128 Under General Test' Acceptance Criteria and Methods, d), in addi-tion to verifying the uniformity of the wetted surface (proper ,

operation of the water distribution bucket and weirs),-an estima- 1 tion of the water film thickness needs to be incorporated, as

( discussed in RAI 260.124. l 260.129 under General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods, b), reference is made to features and equipment not identified in Section 6.2.2 ,

of the SSAR. These features need to be included in the SSAR i description:

l

a. Diverse actuation signals, those in addition to the Hi-2 containment pressure signal, need to be included in SSAR Section 6.2.2.1. Alternatively, the Initial Test Program description would have to specifically address SSAR Section 7.3 to identify the appropriate features of the PCS actuation system that are covered by the testing.

b. _The shield plate which protects the distribution bucket.

260.130 An additional test objective needs to be developed that will provide an estimate of the overall heat transfer process during the testing of the PCS. Consideration should be given to perform- l ing the test with a sufficient temperature difference between the l PCCWST water temperature and the internal containment temperature to observe and measure containment cooldown. With no steam inside containment, this test will validate the overall thermal resis-tance of the vessel wall and its inorganic zinc coatings used in the design basis accident evaluation model. These data should, if practical, be obtained in conjunction with General Test Acceptance  !

criteria and Methods, f) which provides information on the I exterior boundary of.the PCS'(air flow rates and temperatures).

Questions 260.131 throuah 260.135 aoolv to section 14.2.9.1.10 Containment Isolation and Leak Rate Testina 260.131 Is the preoperational test separate and distinct from the ASME Containment Structural Acceptance Test? Is it performed after the ASME Containment Structural Acceptance Test? If this is the case, it r.hould be clarified in Section 14.2.9.1.10.

260,132 A requirement to verify that isolation valve divisional assign-ments for instrumentation and actuation circuits are correct should be included. Also, instrumentation logic and remote manual operation cap cility should be verified.

i.

I 260,133 Fail-open and fail-close valve motions should be verified.

L 260.134 Stroke-times should be verified.

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

_ . _. _ _ ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _. . _ _.___ _ _ ._

1 l

r l 260.135 Plants have used their Type C test procedures for preoperational testing. The test abstract references ANS-56.8-1994 for leakage testing methodology. The 1994 standard is permitted for Option B j

leakage testing programs to meet the requirements of Appendix J.

Option A plants that want to use their Appendix J procedures and

, methods for preoperational testing have to use the 1972 standard.

l Ouestions 260.136 throuah 260.139 anolv to section 14.2.9.1.11 Containment i Hydroaen Control System Testina i

) 260.136 The Purpose and the General Test Acceptance criteria and Methods

sections do not address the nonsafety-related functions described in Section 6.2.4. Specifically, those aspects of the system that have been incorporated to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(f-

)(2)(ix) need to be verified by testing. Therefore, this test abstract needs to be modified to include testing that verifies the operability of (1) all sixteen hydrogen sensors in their role of supporting proper actuation and operation of the hydrogen igniter-s, and (2) the alternative power supplies to the hydrogen ignite-rs.

i 260.137 The SSAR does not appear to describe when the hydrogen igniteis ,

are to be actuated and how they are to be operated. This informa- I tion is needed to support test c) under General Test Acceptance l Criteria and Methods. '

260.138 All the recombiner plates should be tested under test b) of the General Test Acceptance Criteria and Methods unless it can be established that they are from the same batch or manufacturing lot. Westinghouse also needs to specify how many plates will be tested once traceability to the same batch or manufacturing lot has been established.

260.139 Section 6.2.4 of the SSAR does not support the determination of a specified plate temperature as described in test b) under General Test Acceptance criteria and Methods. Temperatures within the PAR cartridge can vary greatly and are dependent on a number of fac-tors such as location and mounting of the thermocouple, and the proximity of the thermocouple to the hydrogen source. This infor-mation is needed because during a test the temperature within a plate may be below or above the specified acceptance temperature depending on the location of the thermocouple.