ML20151M710
| ML20151M710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1985 |
| From: | Siegel B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601020668 | |
| Download: ML20151M710 (43) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ _ _ _. _ _ . ___ _ . , . DEC 2 41985 Docket No.: 50-461 APPLICANT: Illinois Power Company ;
- FACILITY
- Clinton Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF' MEETING WITH ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY RELATED TO CLINTON'S ACCELERATED POWER ASCENSION PROGRAft 4 A meeting between representatives of the Illinois Power Company (IP) and the.
- -NRC staff was held on December'16,19C5, at the NRC Office in Bethesda, Maryland. :
- The purpose of the meeting was the.following. ;
i t
.IP to apprise the staff of Clinton's Power Ascension Program l Acceleraticn(PAPA) concept; +
IP to apprise the staff that single recirculation loop operation
.will be requested; and ~
IP to apprise the staff of the need for expedited reviews of submittals. Enclosure 1 contains a copy of meeting attendees and ' Enclosure 2 contains
- a copy of the neeting handouts. l A discussion of schedular comitments for submittals and. review followed l
- the presentation. IP stated that the initial submittal-in the PAPA program
- would be the week of January 14th. IP was encourage to prioritize the items
- in the PAPA pre.3 ram and subnit parts of the package as they are completed.
Further schedule discussions will occur as the submittals are received due l,- to the tight schedular requirements of the program. l I J Origirm1 Signed by, i
Enclosure:
l Byron Siegel, Project Manager As stated BkR Project Directorate No. 4 ccc .See.next page . Division of BWR Licensing [ DISTRMB JTION : BedIW:ane OELD !
! NRC PDR EJordan :
Local PDR BGrimes ! PD#4 Reading. ACRS (10) ,
= JPartlow Glainas >
kButler DVassallo ; BSiegel DWagner i RBecker i
'BWarnick J
PDk9t
/ PD#4 ; BSieg UButler '
2- ' 12/Hf85, 12/30/85 B6010206ee B51224 PDR ADOCK 05000461
. _ _ _ _ _ ___ _E _-_ ^____1______.__.__
- _____I"t_________
+
n aseg'o UNITED STATES 8% ' ,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i j 1 ' ::. E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%, p nEc ?4 Ge5.
j Cccket No.: 50-461 J l 4 APPLICANT: Illinois Power Company FACILITY: Clinton Power Station !
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY RELATED
- TO CLINTON'S ACCELERATED POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM A meeting between representatives of the Illinois Power Company (IP) and the ,
i NRC staff was held on December 16, 1985, at the NRC Office in Bethesda, Paryland. ! , The purpose of the meeting was the following: ! '. IP to apprise the staff of Clinton's Power Ascension Program Acceleration (PAPA) concept; IP to apprise the staff that single recirculation loop operation will be requested; and IP to apprise the staff of the need for expedited reviews of submittals. Enclosure I contains a copy of meeting attendees and Enclosure 2 contains j a copy of the meeting handouts. A discussion of schedular comitments for submittals and review followed
- the presentation. IP stated that 'the initial submittal in the PAPA program 4
would be the week of January 14th. IP was encouraged to prioritize the items j in the PAPA program and submit parts of the package as they are completed. Further schedule discussions will occur as the submittals are received due to the tight schedular requirements of the program. i
.r .
?, . y e ;t[
. / / , Byron Sieg'el, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 i Division of BWR Licensing Enclosurec As stated y cce See next page
- Mr. Frank A. Spangenberg Clinton Pcuer Station Illinois Power Company Unit 1 4
; CC*
Mr. Allen Samelson, Esquire Jean Foy, Esquire , , Assistant Attorney General 511 u. fievada Envircnmental Control Division Urbana, Illinois 61801 Southern. Region 500 South Second Street Richard B. Hubbard
- Springfield, Illinois 62706 Vice President !
Technical Associates Mr. D. P. Hall 1723 Hamilton Ave. - Suite K , Vice President San Jose, CA 95125 ' Clinton Power Station : P. O. Box 678 ! Clinton, Illinois, 61727 Mr. H. R. Victor Manager-Nuclear Station Engineering Dpt. Clinton Power Station P. O. Box 678
- Clinton, Illinois 61727 Sheldon Zabel, Esquire Schiff, Har' din & Waite !
7200 Sears Tower ! 1 233 Wacker Drive ! 4 Chicago, Illinois 60606 ! 1 i Resident Inspector ! i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission :. RR 3 Box 229 A i Clinton, Illinois 61727 Mr. R. C. Heider [ Project Manager : Sargent & Lundy Engineers t 55 East Monroe Street- i Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. L. Larson - I Project Manager ! General Electric Company
- 1 175 Curtner Avenue, h/C 395 i
! San Jose, California 95125 l Regional Administrator, Region III i 799 Roosevelt Road i l Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i i l ! ! ? h
- I
! h l
Enclosure 1 MEETIhG RELATED TO POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM ACCELERATION December 16, 1985 NAME AFFILIATION Byron Siegel NRR/ DBL /PD4 Eric Schweitzer Illinois Pcwer - Plant Staff Terry L. Riley Illinois Power - Licensing Paul J. Telthorst Illinois Power - Licensing B.U.B. Sarma GE S/U, Site Support Glen A. Watford GE san Jose - Engineering Bob Warnick Region III G. Lainas NRR/ DBL D.B. Vassallo NRR/ DEL Da'.e Wagner NRR/ DBL W.R. Butler NRR/ DBL R.A. Becker NRR/ DBL l r i
- i .
- fs e Enclosure P l
- ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY !
i CLINTON POWER STATION (CPS) i : 1 l PRESENTATION TO NRC STAFF i POWER ASCENSION ! PROGRAM l ACCELERATION l (PAPA) ! i l t 1 ! DECEMBER 16,1985 j i ,l
MEETING OBJECTIVES i
- APPRISE NRC STAFF OF CPS POWER ASCENSION l PROGRAM ACCELERATION (PAPA) CONCEPT
- OBTAIN NRC STAFF SUPPORT FOR BASIC CPS PAPA ELEMENTS TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION. !
- TECHNICAL SPECIFl. CATION EXCEPTIONS
- EQUIPMENT ^ OUT OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - SINGLE ,
RECIRCULATION LOOP OPERATION l l
- I APPRISE NRC STAFF OF NEED FOR EXPEDITED l REVIEWS OF CPS SUBMITTALS 6
q 4
) -
t 1 l l
CPS STARTUP . TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES I e PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT CPS HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED e VALIDATE ANALYTICAL MODELS
- AND ASSUMPTIONS USED i
e DEMONSTRATE THAT CPS CAN BE OPERATED IN
~ ACCORDANCE WITH PLANT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS I
e PROVIDE OPERATOR TRAINING (TO EXTENT
- PRACTICAL) e VERIFICATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF CPS l OPERATING AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES !
(TO EXTENT PRACTICAL)
~
1 HIGH QUALITY PROGRAM NEEDED TO MEET THESE OBJECTIVE AND MEET NRC STAFF REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY REGULATORY GUIDE 1.68
APPLICATI@N @F TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION TO CPS STARTUP TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT e PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT e ADVANCED BWR/6 MK 111 DESIGN ! , CPS HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY e DESIGN CONFIGURATION AND DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED CHANGE CONTROL PROGRAM e QA/QC PROGRAM / PROCEDURES e FSAR & TECHNICAL SPECl-FICATION CERTIFICATION e APPLIED " LESSONS LEARNED" ; j OVALIDATE ANALYTICAL e EXTENSIVE TESTING OF KEY MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS TECHNICAL ISSUES USED FOR DESIGN e IMPROVED ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND MODELS e EXTENSIVE BWR TEST DATA BASE AND EXPERIENCE O DEMONSTRATE CPS CAN BE e ENHANCED PLANT DATA OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE ACQUISITION SYSTEMS WITH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS e MORE COMPREHENSIVE TECH
& TECH SPECS SPEC SURVEILLANCES e THOROUGH AND AGGRESIVE PRE-OP TEST PROGRAM
APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION TO CPS STARTUP TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES IMPROVEMENT l OPROV.lDE OPERATOR TRAINING e ENHANCED TRAINING PROGRAM (TO EXTENT PRACTICAL) e HIGHLY TRAINED STARTUP STAFF e EXPERIENCE FROM OTHER PROJECTS e GE TRAINING SUPPORT l I OVERIFICATION OF ADEQUACY e ENHANCED TRAINING PROGRAM OF OPERATING / EMERGENCY e HIGHLY TRAINED STAFF / PROCEDURES (TO EXTENT SIMULATOR EXPERIENCE l PRACTICAL) e EXPERIENCE FROM OTHER PROJECTS e SYMPTOMATIC EMERGENCY PROCEDURES COMBINATION OF CPS STARTUP TEST PROGRAM & TECHNOLOGICAL l IMPROVEMENTS ENSURES 1 OBJECTIVES ARE MET. l l l !
CPS PAPA ELEMENTS REQUIRING NRC REVIEW
- TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION
- MAJOR ACTIVITIES
- CATEGORIZATION OF TESTING ACCELERATION.
-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EXCEPTIONS i
- EQUIPMENT OUT OF SERVICE i
i 1 1 ! l { l
TEST SIMPLIFICATI@N AND . ELIMINATION MAJOR
' ACTIVITIES OF PROGRAM 1
CONCEPTUAL LICENSING BASIS ! GE PRESENTATION TO NRC/NRR STAFF AUGUST 8,1985 GE PRESENTATION TO REGIONAL STAFF SEPTEMBER 11,1985 ESTABLISHED PAPA PROGRAM
' IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES HOPE CREEK- SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RIVERBEND - 10CFR50.59 REVIEWS (AS REQUIRED)
CPS PROGRAM t DETAILED ENGINEERING / PRELIMINARY SAFETY REVIEW (GE) . SAFETY EVALUATION REVIEW (IP) ) REVISED STARTUP TEST SPECIFICATION (GE) FSAR CHAPTER +14 AMENDMENT (IP) UPDATE STARTUP TEST PROCEDURES (IP) i UPDATE PLANT OPERATING PROCEDURES (IP) i LICENSING SUPPORT (GE) ! TEST CHANGE PACKAGES SUBMITAL TO NRC (IP) i ,, SUBMIT FSAR CHANGES TO NRC (IP) SUBMIT TEST PROCEDURES CHANGES TO REGION lli (IP) t SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO ENSURE QUALITY IS MAINTAINED j FOR AN ACCELERATED TEST PROGRAM i r '__ _ _ _-_ _ ._ _ _ _ __ _. - _ _ - ._ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ t
l . .
- CATEGORIZATION O'F '
t TESTING ACCELERATION t e FOUR CATEGORIES IDENTIFIED l .
- 1. SUBf3TITUTE WITH TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE i l 2. DELETION OF NON-ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT TESTS
- 3. TEST SIMPLIFICATION 4
I
- 4. REPLACEMENT OF TESTING WITH DATA '
FROM OTHER TESTS e MAJORITY OF STARTUP TEST PROGRAM CHANGES ARE DELETION OF REDUNDANT TESTS ! 1 e MAJORITY OF CHANGES DO NOT AFFECT COMPLIANCE WITH REG. GUIDE 1.68 i i POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM CHANGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNREVIEWED SAFETY CONCERN l
i
- CPS PAPA DETAILED EXAMPLES l
l l e TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION EXAMPLES 4 i e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EXCEPTION EXAMPLES l t l 1 TO SUPPORT TEST SIMPLIFICATION l i , ) i 4
$ i i . l I , i i
1 I ' I { !i l 1
! l ii ' !
i 4 i t l l 1
CATEGORY 1 . SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE STARTUP TEST #19 < CORE PERFORMANCE l e OBJECTIVE - EVALUATE CORE THERMAL POWER, FLOW, THERMAL MARGINS AND FEEDBACK DATA TO THE DESIGN PROCESS i ! o REQUIREMENTS - REG. GUIDE 1.68, APPENDIX- A, PARAGRAPH ' 5.B REQUIRES STEADY-STATE CORE l PERFORMANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN l THROUGHOUT PERMISSIBLE POWER-TO-FLOW ! I CONDITIONS j i o DISCUSSION ! l ! e DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH TECH SPEC THERMAL LIMITS ! e TECH SPECS DEFINE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
- AT LEAST ONCE PER 24 HOURS i
- WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER 15% THERMAL POWER INCREASE '
f
, . , _ _ - . _ , - , . , - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' - - ~ ^ - ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ - ~ - ^ - - -
l CATEGORY 1 EXAMPLE l (CONTINUED)
- DISCUSSION - i e OPERATING PLANT DATABASE ADEQUATELY CONFIRMS BASIC DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS l
- EXPERIENCED STAFF AVAILABLE TO ASSIST OPERATIONS i PERSONNEL IN IMPLEMENTING SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
- PAST GAMMA SCANS HAVE QUALIFIED DESIGN PROCESS
- OTHER TESTS VERIFY CORE POWER AND FLOW !
I
- - PLANT SURVEILLANCE TESTS USED TO CALIBRATE .
LOCAL / AVERAGE POWER RANGE MONITORS
- TEST +13, PROCESS COMPUTER, EVALUATES THERMAL l
LIMITS (MANUAL HEAT BALANCE & BUCLE PERFORMED l TO VERIFY ' COMPUTER) !
- - TESTS +30C AND 35, RECIRCULATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND FLOW CALIBRATION, PROVIDES {
i ASSURANCE OF ACCURATE CORE FLOW MEASUREMENTS : { i
- REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET !
f l
DELETION OF NON-ESSENTIAL . I EQUIPMENT TESTS STARTUP TEST #5 - CONTROL ROD l DRIVE / GANGED ROD TESTING
- OBJECTIVE - DEMONSTRATE THE PROPER OPERATION OF THE GANGED ROD MODE OF OPERATION OF THE CONTROL ROD DRIVE SYSTEM
- REQUIREMENTS - REG. GUIDE 1.68, APPENDIX A, PARAGRAPH 2.B REQUIRES THAT TESTING OF CONTROL ,
k ROD WITHDRAWAL AND INSERT SPEEDS, SEQUENCERS AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS BE TESTED AFTER THE CORE IS FULLY LOADED ' j
- DISCUSSION -
t !
- BWR/6 HAS CAPABILITY TO MOVE " GANG" OF CONTROL RODS I
- GANGED MODE TESTING TO ENSURE THAT CONTROL RODS WITHIN GANG MOVE TOGETHER j
- GANGED ROD MODE IS OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT
- GANGED MODE IS NOT SAFETY RELATED FUNCTION
- GANGED ROD MODE OF OPERATION WILL NOT BE USED PRIOR TO TESTING
- INDEPENDENT TESTING PERFORMED ON CONTROL ROD l SEQUENCERS WHICH ENFORCE COMPLIANCE TO SAFETY .
l ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS '
- CONTROL ROD DROP ACCIDENT
- ROD WITHDRAWAL ERROR l ..-_ -
8 REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET
CATEGORY 3 EXAMPLE SIMPLIFY TESTING TEST #29 - RECIRCULATION FLOW ; i CONTROL SYSTEM t i i
- OBJECTIVE - DEMONSTRATE ACCEPTABLE RECIRC FLOW CONTROLI SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR DESIRED MODES OF OPERATION AND OPTIMlZE SETTINGS OF RECIRC !
FLOW CONTROLLER
- REQUIREMENTS - REG. GUIDE 1.68, APPENDlX A, PARAGRAPH 5.S REQUIRES RECIRC FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM BE l CALIBRATED AND PERFORMANCE VERIFIED.
PARAGRAPH 5.H.H REQUIRES DEMONSTRATION OF PLANT DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO DESIGN LOAD SWINGS l l
- DISCUSSION -
l
- DEMONSTRATE THE TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF ANY SYSTEM l RELATED VARIABLE TO ANY TEST INPUT DOES NOT DIVERGE l
- NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE FLOW CONDITIONS & TEST INPUTS (RAMP AND STEP DEMANDS) CAN BE REDUCED
- PRIOR TO TEST, PHEDICTIONS OF SYSTEM BEHAVIOR PERFORMED TO AlD IN TUNING OF FLOW CONTROL
- EXTENSIVE BWR TEST EXPERIENCE FROM KUOSHENG 1 & 2, LASALLE 1 & 2, AND LEIBSTADT QUALIFIES APPROACH l _
CATEGORY 3 EXAMPLE (CONTINUED) DISCUSSION - e IMPROVED ANALYTICAL MODELS PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE PREDICTION OF SYSTEM BEHAVIOR I e ENHANCED DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION FROM EACH TEST e REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET : i I NUMBER OF FLOW CONDITIONS AND TEST i INPUTS CAN BE REDUCED BASED ON PRIOR EXPERIENCE & PRE-OP CALIBRATION. i i !
CATEL lY 4 EXAMPLE REPLACE TEST WITH DATA FROM . OTHER TEST STARTUP TEST #30D
- RECIRCULATION RUNBACK i
e OBJECTIVE - VERIFY ADEQUACY OF RECIRCULATION RUNBACK j TO AVOID SCRAM UPON A LOSS OF ONE FEEDWATER PUMP e REQU!REMENTS - REG GUIDE 1.68, APPENDIX A, PARAGRAPH i 5.S REQUIRES THAT RECIRC FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM BE CAllBRATED AS NECESSARY AND l PERFORMANCE VERIFIED e DISCUSSION - e STARTUP TEST +300 SIMULATES LOSS OF FEEDWATER PUMP
- ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REQUIRE ONLY THAT REClRC RUNBACK OCCURS i
- SCRAM AVOIDANCE IS NOT DEMONSTRATED DURING TEST, [
' ONLY CAPABILITY OF RUNBACK t e STARTUP TEST #23C PERFORMS FEEDWATER PUMP TRIP TEST
- ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION OF RECIRC RUNBACK CAPABILITIES; UNDER REAL CONDITIONS {
- SCRAM AVOIDANCE CAPABILITIES DEMONSTRATED j DURING TEST l
e RECIRC RUNBACK FEATURE IS NOT SAFETY RELATED 1 l
- NO CREDIT TAKEN IN SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR !
RUNBACK FEATURE ' l o REG GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES MET - _ - - - U
CATEGORY 4. EXAMPLE I JUSTIFY TEST DELETION TEST #21 - CORE POWER-VOID l MODE RESPONSE l I l e OBJECTIVE - MEASURE STABILITY OF CORE POWER-VOID DYNAMIC RESPONSE & DEMONSTRATE ACCEPTABLE LIMITS BY MOVING A VERY HIGH
! WORTH CONTROL ROD ONE OR TWO NOTCHES I
e REQUIREMENTS - NO SPECIFIC REG. GUIDE 1.68 REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM DURING POWER ASCENSION l TESTING (PARAGRAPHS 5.S, 5.V, AND 5.H.H REQUIRE DEMONSTRATION OF ACCEPTABLE CONTROL SYSTEM RESPONSES DURING STEA[5 l STATE & TRANSIENT CONDITIONS) l l e DISCUSSION - e PERFORMED IN CONJUNCTION WITH STARTUP TEST +22 MEASURES DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO PRESSURE REGULATOR f STEP CHANGES I i e CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR TEST CONDITIONS 4 & 5 i e DEMONSTRATES RESPONSE OF SYSTEM VARIABLES (HEAT I FLUX & REACTOR PRESSURE) TO CONTROL ROD MOVEMENT ! EXHIBITS NON-DIVERGENT BEHAVIOR ! r l l
4 CATEGORY 4 EXAMPLE (CONTINUED)
- DISCUSSION -
- MEASUREMENT OF SYSTEM STABILITY TO CONTROL ROD MOVEMENT DEVELOPED FOR SMALL REACTOR CORES
- DOES NOT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION FOR LARGE LOOSELY COUPLED BWRS (LOW I
SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO)
- - CORE WIDE DISTURBANCE PROVIDES MORE MEANINGFUL DATA FOR LARGE CORES e STARTUP TEST +22 YlELDS VALUABLE CORE STABILITY DATA ;
l .
- NORMAL OBSERVATIONS OF OPERATIONAL POWER MANEUVERS
! PROVIDES SUFFICIENT DATA '1 e PREVIOUS EXTENSIVE SPECIAL TESTS OF BWRS HAVE l DEMONSTRATED STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
- PEACH BOTTOM 2, VERMONT YANKEE, CAORSO, LElBSTADT, & BROWNS FERRY
- ENHANCED DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS USED TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM INFORMATION l_ _ _ _ _ . -_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -
i i
- l CATEGORY EXAMP.LE ~4 -
l (CONTINUED) i ! i 1
- DISCUSSION -
i j
# NEW STABILITY LICENSING BASIS NO LONGER REQUIRES TEST j
4
- SIL-380 RECOMMENDS MONITORING OF SYSTEM BEHAVIOR
- CAN BE PERFORMED DURING TEST CONDITION 5 ,
- NEUTRON FLUX CHARACTERISTICS DURING NORMAL ;
)i I'
OPERATION AT HIGH POWER / LOW FLOW & ABNORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS (TECH SPECS)
-IMPROVED ANALYTICAL MODELS DEMONSTRATE FUEL j
{i LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED '
- DO NOT ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION AT NATURAL ii CIRCULATION FLOW WHICH IS LEAST STABLE (TECH SPE 1 ;
i f
- s GE BWR FUEL & CORE DESIGNS MEET STABILITY CRITERIA OF 10CFR50 APPENDlX A, i
GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA 10 & 12. DETAILED PROTOTYPE TESTING & TECH SPECS { !i ALLOW DELETION OF THIS TEST. l I
)
i t
l
~
TECHNICAL SPEClFICATION j EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPQRT TEST i SIMPLIFICATION / ELIMINATION i t l
- TEST #3 - FUEL LOADING l i
e TEST SIMPLIFICATION - ELIMINATE FUEL LOADING CHAMBERS. ! ?
# PERFORM FUEL LOADING IN AN OFF CENTER SPIRAL PATTERN' !
j ! e TECH SPEC EXCEPTION FOR MINIMUM REQUIRED OPERABLE l J SRM CHANNELS AND NO MONITORING FOR FIRST 16 BUNDL! l'
- TEST #5 - CONTROL ROD DRIVE / HOT SINGLE I I ;
4 ROD SCRAM TESTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH i } i PLANT SCRAMS ! i i e REPLACE INDIVIDUAL CRD SCRAM TIMING AT RATED PRESSl WITH FULL CORE SCRAM DATA ! i ; i
- EXEMPT SELECTED INDIVIDUAL CRDS FROM SCRAM
{ TIMING AT RATED PRESSURE i i i l l i i
-- - -- .aa.~m -.sh.
-..-_a ..--,#,_._a *. m'=AJ. _,,an--_ _-A_Aa_.._a.M e u ma. X . - - .+4J. m-&.--.a-_-4_ -.hi a MAa--+A-- h.
.--m
'TECHN] CAL SPEC]F] CAT]ON EXCEPT]ON
- i i !
TIST #3 - FLlIL LOAD]NG ! 4 TEST 3]L]PL]F] CAT]ON l: i 2 OBJECTIVE OF TECH SPEC SURVElLLAMCE 3 PROVIDE CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF NEUTRON FLUX DURING i FUEL LOADING l
- MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS l
,
- SUFFICIENT MONITORING TO ENSURE LICENSING LIMITS ARE l
) NOT EXCEEDED DURING LICENSING BASIS ACCIDENTS DURING
~
l ! FUEL LOADING ! \ - i
- CURRENT TESTING ~
- PERFORM FUEL LOADING WITH PORTABLE FUEL LOADING I
{ CHAMBERS (FLC'S) WITH MINIMUM REQUIRED COUNT RATE OF 3 COUNTS PER SECOND (CPS) l
- PROPOSED CHANGES l
- REPLACE FLC'S WITH SOURCE RANGE MONITORS (SRM)
INSTRUMENTS AND LOWER MINIMUM COUNT RATE TO 0.7 CD s ; l l
- EXCEPTION TO TECH SPECS -
- LOWER MINIMUM COUNT RATE TO O.7 CPS
- EXEMPT MINIMUM COUNT RATE REQUIREMENT FOR INITIAL 16 BUNDLES LOADED
- ALLOW USE OF PORTABLE SOURCES TO DEMONSTRATE l SRM OPERABILITY
- REQUIRE ONLY ONE SRM TO BE CONTINUOUSLY INDICATING IN CONTROL ROOM l
I i 1 TEST #3 - FUEL LOADING (CONTINUED) i t e BASIS FOR TECH SPEC EXCEPTION ! I e MINIMUM COUNT RATE REDUCED TO O.7 CPS { ! e DEMONSTRATION OF ACCEPTABLE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO REQUIRED (2:1) i e CAPABILITY OF INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM AT LOWER j 1 COUNT RATE DEMONSTRATED AT OTHER PLANTS e INITIAL CORE FUEL (NO EXPOSURE) HAS LOWER GAMMA N l e EXEMPT MINIMUM COUNT RATE REQUIREMENT FOR INITIAL 16 BUNDLES LOADED i i e ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THAT 16 FUEL BUNDLES CAN B ' { LOADED WITH CONTROL RODS WITHDRAWN AND STILL i MAINTAIN SUBCRITICAL CORE l l 0 ALLOW USE OF PORTABLE SOURCES TO DEMONSTRATE SRM OPERABILITY l e PROVIDES FUNCTIONAL CHECK OF SRM'S NOT SURROUNDEDl l BY FUEL j l e PORTABLE SOURCE WIDELY USED IN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY !, FOR INSTRUMENT ' CHECKS l e PRECEDENT AT PREVIOUS PLANTS FOR USE
TEST #3 - FUEL LOADING-(CONTINUED) j
- REQUIRE ONLY ONE SRM TO BE CONTINUOUSLY INDICATING IN CONTROL ROOM I
- TWO SRM CHANNELS'WILL BE DEMONSTRATED OPERABLE 4
AT ALL TIMES
- AT LEAST ONE SRM CHANNEL IN QUADRANT OF FUEL LOAD AND ADJACENT QUADRANT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED OPERABLE
- SRM SURROUNDED BY WATER NOT REQUIRED TO BE i CONTINUOUSLY INDICATING
- SAFETY ANALYSES NOT DEPENDENT ON SRM'S
)i 4 i
- NO IMPACT ON SAFETY ANALYSES 1
!i i; ; i
- REG GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET !
,I, i i 'i : f l l l i L. _
4 . l TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EXCEPTION ' TEST #5 - CONTROL ROD DRIVE / HOT SINGLE ROD SCRAM TESTING IN , ' CONJUNCTION WITH PLANT SCRAMS ! h
- OBJECTIVE OF TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE
- VERIFY CONTROL ROD SYSTEM PERFORMANCE TO ASSURE l
ADEQUATE SCRAM REACTIVITY t
! i
- MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS j
- SUFFICIENT SCRAM REACTIVITY SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO l ENSURE LICENSING LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED DURING LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT EVENTS REQUIRING SCRAM FOR MITIGATION !
l l i
- CURRENT TESTING
- PERFORM DURING PRE-OP TESTING, COLD CONDITIONS
~
. AFTER FUEL LOADED,'DURING HEATUP, HOT CONDITIONS WITH RATED REACTOR PRESSURE, & IN CONJUNCTION WITH PLANNED SCRAMS FROM OTHER STARTUP TESTS -{
I
- PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS TO TECH SPECS
- POSTPONE HOT SCRAM-TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE {
TESTS OF SELECTED CONTROL ROD DRIVES FOR INITIAL FUEL CYCLE l i i I
TEST #5 - CRD / HOT SINGLE ROD - SCRAM TESTING (CONTINUED) i
- BASIS FOR TECH SPEC EXCEPTION e SCRAM PERFORMANCE OF ALL RODS IS VERIFIED DURING PRE-OPS AND OPEN VESSEL PHASES
- SCRAM PERFORMANCE OF WITHDRAWN RODS IS VERIFIED DURING STARTUP TEST 28
- f - PRIOR TO 40% POWER PER TECH SPECS 1
- ANALYSIS CAN BE PERFORMED TO JUSTIFY LACK OF DATA FOR SELECTED CONTROL RODS NOT
' FULLY WITHDRAWN DURING SCRAMS
- ANALYSIS WILL DEMONSTRATE BOL & EOC !
REACTIVITY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADED ! EVEN IF SELECTED RODS DO NOT SCRAM
- SCRAM INSERTION OF EXEMPTED RODS VERIFIED DURING FULL CORE SCRAMS
- NO IMPACT ON OPERATING LIMITS e DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM 'WILL RECORD SCRAM TIMES FROM ALL CONTROL RODS DURING FULL CORE SCRAM
- PLANNED SCRAMS AT TEST CONDITIONS 1 & 2 USED TO OBTAIN SCRAM TIME DATA l
)i I
- ALL LICENSING LIMITS ARE MET
- REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET
EQUIPMENT OUT OF SERVICE
- ANALYSIS TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED CPS OPERATION l i
l UP TO AND INCLUDING FULL POWER WHEN CERTAIN l i EQUIPMENT IS OUT OF SERVICE l i i
- SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT UNDER PAPA SCOPE INVOLVES .
t i SINGLE RECIRCULATION LOOP OPERATION ; l ! l l
- CONTINGENCY PLANNING WHICH MAINTAINS
' MARGINS TO ESTABLISHED SAFETY CRITERIA l l l l l f I i t t l
- REACT @R RECIRCULATION SYSTEM .
i i SINGLE LOOP OPERATION (SLO) l
- PURPOSE - TO ALLOW OPERATION FOR AN !
i INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME WITH ONE I RECIRCULATION LOOP OUT OF SERVICE I j
- CURRENT - CPS TECH SPEC LIMIT OF TWELVE
. STATUS (12) HOURS OF OPERATION WHEN ONE i
RECIRCULATION LOOP IS INOPERABLE , l ( l e BENEFITS - AVOIDS UNNECESSARY STARTUP DELAYS. DUE TO EQUIPMENT FAILURES l1
- PROVIDES OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY !
FOR THE PLANT LIFETIME
- INCREASED PLANT AVAILABILITY /
CAPACITY FACTOR l l I
SINGLE L@OP @PERATI@N i PROGRAM S' COPE l l
- L
- o EVALUATIONS l i l
- e RECIRCULATION LOOP FLOW !
i
- JET PUMP CAVITATION I i
l
- RECIRCULATION FLOW CONTROL J
t
- MINIMUM CRITICAL POWER RATIO SAFETY AND !
{ OPERATING LIMITS I I l e THERMAL HYDRAULIC STABILITY
- ECCS / LOCA ANALYSIS J
e CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS , i e FUEL MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE
- IMPACT ON ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM e VESSEL INTERNAL VIBRATION l
- REACTOR WATER CHEMISTRY i
1 o LICENSING REPORT /FSAR AMENDENT SUBMITAL TO NRC I ! o TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION FOLLOWING NRC APPROVAL TOTAL SYSTEMS EVALUATION
i CPS STARTUP TEST 1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT l l !
- TEST PROGRAM DURATION CAN BE REDUCED BY l
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND COMMITMENT l
- ADEQUATE PLANNING, PRIORITIES & RESOURCES
! e MEETS REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES f !
i i e STARTUP TEST ORGANIZATION ! i I l eGE EXPERIENCED SUPPORT I j e COOPERATION & SUPPORT FROM ENTIRE PLANT STAFF ; i i t i l 3
1 CPS STARTUP TEST PROGRAM 1 i MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED) ! i e STARTUP TEST PROCEDURES MUST BE BOTH ' TECHNICALLY AND OPERATIONALLY CORRECT
- TEST METHODS PRODUCE DATA WHICH SATISFY INTENT OF
{ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- TEST METHODS ARE DOABLE ,
) e TEST METHODS DO NOT JEOPARDIZE OR CHALLANGE PLANT i l EQUIPMENT UNNECESSARILY i e SPECIFIC TRAINING OF STARTUP TEST & OPERATIONS PERSONNEL TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE , l e LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE AT OTHER PLANTS l / ! ! e REVIEW OR WALKTHROUGH PROCEDURES 01 1 l r 1 , e RUN PROCEDURES ON SIMULATOR WHERE POSSIBLE l l l l e ABILITY TO ACQUIRE & UTILIZE UNPLANNED TRANSIENT DATA! l 1 ,
a CPS PAPA LICENSING APPROACH
- s
- PRESENTATION REPRESENTS INITIAL NRC REVIEW i
i OF CPS PROGRAM j
- INITIAL TEST CHANGE PACKAGES - EXPECT SUBMITTA TO NRC STAFF BY EARLY JANUARY 1986 l l
\
- REQUEST NRC REVIEWS AND APPROVAL VIA SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT PROCESS i
- GENERIC APPLICATIONS FROM HOPE CREEK PAPA l ARE EVIDENT !
- l i
- FSAR CHAPTER #14 REVISION SUBMITTALS WILL i
COME AFTER FUEL LOAD - MINIMlZE IMPACT ON ISSUANCE OF LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSING i
- CPS L'ICENSING STAFF WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH !
!' NRC CPS LICENSING PROJECT MANAGER TO ENSURE ! TIMELY STAFF REVIEWS l s l o NR'C,: REGION 111 REVIEWS OF TEST PROCEDURE CHANGES WILL REQUIRE CLOSE ATTENTION TO MEET l TIGHT SCHEDULES
~
CPS PAPA SUMMAR.Y
- NRC SUPPORT AND EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM ACCELERATION e OUT OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ANALYSIS - SINGLE RECIRC l LOOP OPERATION l
- TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION !
1
- TECH SPEC EXPECTIONS l
- PROGRAM QUALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED / ENHANCED '
l
- APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS
- SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS <
# REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS / OBJECTIVES ARE MET l
0 POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM CAN BE i SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED
# HISTORIC PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
# PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ATTENTION o CPS SCHEDULE IS hlGHT :
- MINIMAL REG. GUIDE 1.68 RELIEF REQUIRED e TWO TECH SPEC EXCEPTIONS REQUIRED t
# 19'OUT 2/ OF THE 26 ITEMS SUBMITTED BY HOPE CREEK ;
l ____ _ _ _ _ _ t
CLINTON POWER STATION
~
~ TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION TEST NO. TEST NAME ' CATEGORY e 1.0 CHEMICAL & RADIOL'0GICAL 3
. 2.0 RADIATION MEASUREMENT 1 3.0 FUEL LOADING 3
., 5.1 CRD/H0T FRICTION TEST 3
' 5.2 CRD/H0T SINGLE R0D SCRM 4 . ;
/,5 . 3 CRD/ GANGED ROD TESTING 2 8.0 CONTROL R0D SEQUENCE EXCHANGE 4 11.0 LPRM RESPONSE CHECKS 3 t i
;12.0 APRM CALIBRATION 1 :
1 14.0 RCIC 3 16.0 L6A SELECT PROCESS TEMP- 1 18.0 TIP UNCERTAINTY 4 19.0 CORE PERFORMANCE 'l - . 21.0 CORE POWER-VOID MODE 4 l 22.0 PRESSURE REGULATOR. 3 i
'23.1 23A FEEDWATER SYSTEM RESPONSE 3 i 24.0 TURBINE VALVE SURVEILLANCE 1 25.1 ~25A MSIV FUNCTION TEST 1 .
d26.0 RELIEF VALVES /250 PSIG 3 27.0 TURBINE TRIP / LOAD REJECT 3 ,; 129.0 RECIRCULATION FLOW CONTROL 3 ! 30.1 30A ONE RPT/TC #6 3 30.3 - 30B TWO RPT 4 l 30.4 30D RECIRC RUNBACK 4
-30.5 30E RECIRC CAVITATION 3 ;
99.0' TEST. CONDITION 4 4
, e a._ , ., , ..-.- y , -.m,. -p, , . ~ , ,ee . ., , ,.---
PROCESS FOR TEST SIMPLIFICATION / ELIMINATION l GE UTILITY NRC CONCEPTUAL LICENSING (COMPLETED) BASIS PRELIMINARY NRC (COMPLETED) ESTABLISH CONCURRENCE / GUIDELINES REVIEW GUIDELINES
~
DETAILED ENGINEERING / SAFETY EVALUATION PRELIMINARY SAFETY REVIEW REVIEW
. i
~
REVISED STARTUP TEST FSAR SPECIFICATION /FDI ANENDMENT i UPDATE STARTUP TEST UPDATE PROCEDURES / REVIEW PROCEDURES-LICENSING ' SUBMIT FSAR FSAR/ PROCEDURE SUPPORT AND PROCEDURES REVIEW 8 APPROVAL i i
= =5 * - -
r
i ~ CLINTON POWER STATION , TEST SIMPLIFICATION AND ELIMINATION , TEST NO. TEST.NAME IMPLEMENTATION 1.0 CllEMICAL & RADIOLOGICAL TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS L 2.0 RADIATION MEASUREMENT SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE. " l 3.0 FUEL LOADING TEST SIMPLIFICATION, ELIMINATE FLCS 5.1 CRD/ HOT FRICTION TEST TEST SIMPLIFICATION 5.2 CRD/ HOT SINGLE R0D SCRM IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEST 28 , 5.3 CRD/ GANGED ROD TESTING DELETE,NONESSENTIALEQUIPMENTTEST 8.0 CONTROL ROD SEQUENCE EXCHANGE JUSTIFY TEST DELETION
~
11.0 LPRM RESPONSE CHECKS TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS 12.0 APRM CALIBRATION SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH SPEC' SURVEILLANCE ! 14.0 RCIC - TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS
- 16.0 16A SELECT PROCESS TEMP TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE.# OF TESTS
- 18.0 TIP UNCERTAINTY. JUSTIFY TEST DELETION 19.0 CORE PERFORMANCE SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE
- 21.0 CORE POWER-VOID MODE JUSTIFY TEST DELETION 22.0 PR REG SETPOINT CHANGE TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS l' 23.1 23A FW SYS RESPONSE TEST SIMPLIFICATION, RELAX LVL 2 CRITERIA * "
- ' 24.0 TURB VALVE SURVEILLANCE SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH ~ SPEC SURVEILLANCE
] 25.1 25A MSIV FUNCTION TEST SUBSTITUTE WITH TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE ! 25.2 25B REACTOR ISOLATION TEST SIMPLIFICATION, EXPAND TEST WINDOW 26.0 RELIEF VALVES /250 PSIG . TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS i 27.0 TURBINE TRIP / LOAD REJECT TEST SIMPLIFICATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS . 29.0 RECIRC FLOW CONTROL TEST SIMPLIFCATION, REDUCE # OF STEPS ' i 30.1 30A ONE RPT/TC #6 TEST SIMPLIFCATION, REDUCE # OF TESTS 30.3 IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEST 27 30B TWO RPT I 30.4 300 RECIRC RUNBACK IN CONJUNCTION WITel TEST 23A ! 30.5. .30E RECIRC CAVITATION TEST SIMPLIFICATION, P. EDUCE # OF TESTS 1 99.0 TEST CONDITION 4 JUSTIFY TEST CONDITION DELETION i' i :
COMPLIANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1 68, APPENDIX A PARAGRAPH DESCRIPTION TESTING OPEN VESSEL HEATUP
- 2. FUEL LOADING- 3,TS x 2.A bHUTDOWN MARGIN 3,4,TS x 2.B CRD TESTING PREOPS,5,TS x 2.C RPS TESTING PREOPS,TS x 2.D LEAK RATE TEST PREOPS,TS x 2.E WATER QUALITY 1,TS X 2.F VIBRATION TESTS 33 x 2.G SRM/lRM 6,10,TS x 2.H INCOREltNITORS 13 x
- 4. L0w POWER TESTING 4.A (f%R) -
X 4.a (PWR) - x 4.C- (PWR) - x 4.D SRM/IRM OVERLAP 6,1 X
~
4.E FLUX DISTRIBUTION TS x 4F RADIATION SURVEYS X 4.G- ' RADIATION MONITORS 74,TS x 4.H CHEMICAL /RADIOCHEM. ,TS x 4.1 ROD CONTROL SYSTEMS 5,TS... x 4.J CONT, VENTILATION BOP x 4.K STEAM DRIVEN ECCS ,15,TS x 4.L MSIV OPERABILITY. ,TS x 4.M MSIV LEAKAGE SYSTEM- x 4.N COMPUTER '13 x-4.0 - CRD SCRAM TD1ES x 4.P RELIEF VALVES TS x
- 4.0 TURBINE, BYPASS VALVES ,TS x 4.R RWCU ,TS x 4.S INTERNALS VIBRATION PRE 0PS,34 x 4.T (PWR). -
x 4.0 CONTROL SYSTEMS 14,15,22,23A,29 x
. REFERS TO STARTUP TEST NUMBER (ST-X)
... TS = TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT BOP = BALANCE OF PLANT TESTING O = DELETED TESTING AT INDICATED TEST CONDITION l ,
COMPLIANCE T0 feGULATORY GUIDE 1.68, APP 90lX A (CONT'D) TEST CONDITION PARAGRAPH DESCRIPTION TESTING 1234 56-
- 5. POWER ASCENSION 5.A 5.B POWER VS FLOW CORE PERFORMANCE 30C,35,TS xxx@xx xx xx 5.C SEQUENCE EXCHANGE TS 5.D '(PWR) -
5.E (PWR) - 5.F (PWR) - 5.G rod CONTROL SYSTEMS 5,TS x ' 5.H CRD SCRAM TIMES 5,25B,27,28,31,TS x x x x 5.I (PWR) - 5.J (PWR) - 5.K ECCS HIGH PRESSURE 14 ,TS xx 5.L- RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL 14 ,71.TS x x 5.M 5.N REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM LOOSE PARTS MONITOR 1 PRE 0PS
,33,35 - xx@ x
-5.0 LEAK RATE DETECTION PREOPS,14,15,TS,B0P 5.P INTERNALS VIBRATION PRE 0PS,34 5.o FAILED FUEL DETECTORS PREOPS@74,TS x x x 5.R PROCESS COMPUTER 13 x x x 14,15,22,23A,29 xx 5.S 5.T 5.u CONTROL SYSTEMS RELIEF VALVES MSIV TS
,TS xxx@xx xx x x
5.V 5.W FEEDWATER SYSTEM SHIELDING , BOP
,23B,23C xx@xx 5.x AUXILIARY ECCS SYSTEMS BOP 5.Y INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION '11 2 35,TS xxx xx 5.z RADIATION MONITORS 74,TS x x x 5.A.A CHEMICAL / RADIOCHEMICAL TS x Ox xx 5.B.B RADIATION SURVEYS TS x 7 x' 5.C.C RADWASTE' 5.D.D SHUTDOWN OUTSIDE CR 28 x 5.E.E CONT. INERTING/ PURGE BOP 5.F.F VENTILATION & A/C B0P 5.G.G ATWS PRE 0PS,27,@,TS x x 5.H.H LCAD SWINGS 29 xx xx 5.1.1 PUMP TRIPS 23D,27,@,@ x 5.J.J LOSS cF OFFSITE POWER 31 x@
5.K.K LOSS OF FW HEATING 23B Ox x 5.L.L TURSINE TRIP -
. 27 G) x 5.M.M Futt ISOLATION 25B x 5.N.N LOAD REJECTION 27 x x 5,0.0 VIBRATIONS / EXPANSION 17,33,BCP xxx x k.
CATEGORY 4 EXAMPLE ' REPLACE TEST WITH DATA FROM OTHER TEST
. TEST #27 - TURBINE TRIP AND I; GENERATOR LOAD REJECTION l l
l j o OBJECTIVE - DEMONSTRATE RESPONSE OF REACTOR AND
- t. i i '
CONTROL SYSTEMS TO PROTECTIVE TURBINE TRIPS AND GENERATOR LOAD REJECTIONS i I o REQUIREMENTS - REG. GUIDE 1.68, APPENDIX A, PARAGRAPHS I 5.L.L AND 5.N.N REQUIRES TESTING AT 100%
' l t'
j POWER TO DEMONSTRAT.E PLANT DYNAMIC RESPONSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN ! l (TESTS MAY BE COMBINED IF TURBINE TRIP ! IS INITIATED DIRECTLY FROM GENERATOR ! LOAD REJECTION) i I o' DISCUSSION -
~
e STARTUP TEST 27 CURRENTLY INCLUDES 1
- GENERATOR LOAD REJECTION DURIN.G TEST CONDITION 1 l OR 2 (WITHIN PLANT BYPASS CAPACITY) .
t
- TURBINE TRIP.DURING TEST CONDITION 3 (75% POWER) !
l
- GENERATOR LOAD REJECTION AT TEST CONDITION !
6 (10D% POWER) I
.. ~
~
~ CATEG@RY 4 EXAMPLE ' (CONTINUED) l
- o DISCUSSION -
e LEVEL 1 CRITERIA i
- PROPER OPERATION OF TURBINE CONTROL & STOP VALVE i CLOSURE TIMES WITH RESPECT TO BYPASS VALVE OPENING TIMES
- ADEQUATE BYPASS VALVE RESPONSE TIMES
- PROPER FEEDWATER CONTROL SYSTEM LEVEL RESPONSE TO PREVENT FLOODING OF STEAM LINES
- RECIRC FLOW COASTD'OWN FOLLOWING PROTECTIVE TRIPS IS WITHIN DESIGN 1-
. ACCEPTABLE VESSEL DOME PRESSURE & SIMULATED l HEAT FLUX RESPONSE l
- PROPER OPERATION OF LOW-LOW SET PRESSURE LOGIC l FOR SAFETY RELIEFw VALVES (SRVS) t e LEVEL 2 CRITERIA !
- NO MSIV CLOSURE OCCURS IN FIRST THREE MINUTES
- VESSEL DOME' PRESSURE & SIMULATED HEAT FLUX DO
, NOT EXCEED PREDICTED VALUES
- FOR GENERATOR LOAD REJECTION WITHIN BYPASS CAPACITY: i REACTOR DOES NOT SCRAM, BYPASS CAPACITY GREATER !
THAN OR EQUAL TO FSAR VALUES ANALYZED, LOW WATER { LEVEL'RECIRC PUMP TRIP IS AVOlDED, FEEDWATER LEVEL { CONTROL AVOIDS HIGH LEVEL FEEDWATER TRIP, SRV j DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES REMAIN WITHIN 1 i ACCEPTABLE LIMITS. , l i l
... e ,
. CATEGORY 4 EXAMPLE '
(CONTINUED)
- DISCUSSION -
I
#-TURBINE TRIP PERFORMED INSTEAD OF LOAD REJECTION AT
' 40W POWER TO DEMONSTRATE BYPASS VALVE PERFORMANCE l e TURBINE TRIP AT A TEST. CONDITION 3 DELETED i
- FEEDWATER CONTROL SYSTEM IS TUNED IN STARTUP TEST ,
#23A - HIGH / LOW LEVEL AVOIDANCE RESPONSES CHECKED
,DURING FULL POWER LOAD REJECTION TEST I t
# RECIRC PUMP COASTDOWN CHECKED DURING FULL POWER LOAD REJECTION TEST ,
e ENHANCED
' DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS ALLOW SUBSTANTIAL !
AMOUNT OF DATA OBTAIPED FROM FULL POWER LOAD ( hEJECTION TEST e IMPROVED ANALYTICAL MODELS & QUALIFICATION TO PLANT TESTS ASSURES ~ ACCURATE PREDICTION OF SYSTEM RESPONSE e STARTUP TEST +22, PRESSURE REGULATOR, ENSURES NO MSIV (
. CLOSURES ON LOW TURBlNE INLET PRESSURE e OTHER SYSTEM RESPONSES THOROUGHLY CHECKED DURING PRE-OPS & OTHER TESTS (E.G., SCRAM OPERATION, SRVS, l TURBINE STOP VALVE CLOSURE TIMES) !
t
# EXTENSIVE OPERATOR TRAINING FOR PLANNED SCRAMS ACHIEVED ON CPS SIMULATOR !
#, REG. GUIDE 1.68 OBJECTIVES ARE MET l
,_}}