ML20154A952

Request Addl Info Re Simulator Certification Under 10CFR50.45 by 880606.Contingent Upon Review Findings,Onsite Insp of Simulation Facility Scheduled for 880829.Addl Details Will Be Provided After Completion of Review

ML20154A952
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	05/06/1988
From:	Sears P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Randazza J Maine Yankee
References
NUDOCS 8805160265
Download: ML20154A952 (8)

Text

r i o May 6, 1988 Docket No. 50-309 l Mr. J. B. Randazza, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company i 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 l

'8dECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING MAINE YANKEE SIMULATOR CERTIFICATION UNDER 10 CFR 50.45

Dear Mr. Randazza:

The staff has completed its initial review of your "Simulation Facility Certification - NRC Fo m 474," submitted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. In order to complete this phase of our review, certain additional information and responses to a number of specific questions l pertaining to your simulation facility and its certification is required. l These questions and data requests are contained in the enclosure to this  ;

letter. Wherever possible, they are keyed to the corresponding sections of certification submittal.

Please provide the additional data and your reply to the questions no later than June 6, 1988. If you cannot meet this schedule, please contact me as soon as possible, i Contingent upon the findings and conclusions reached as a result of our review of your reply to this letter, we intend to conduct the on site inspection of the Main Yankee simulation facility the week of August 29, 1988. We will provide additional details about this inspection after completion of our initial review.

If you require additional information or clarification about this letter or 1 its attachment, please contact me on (301) 492-1437.

i Ycurs truly, l

Patrick Sears, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II Enclosure as stated I cc: See next page /

/ j *See previous concurrence OFC :PDI-3 * :PDI-3 * :PDl-3/DIR  :  :  :  :

NAME :MRushbrook :PSears:ck :RWessman  :  :  :  :

DATE :5/ 6 /88 :5/ 6 /88 :5/(f/88  :  :  :  :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 890516026S 88050639 DR ADOCK 050

7 Mr. 1. B. Randazza Mai'e Yankee Atomic Power Company Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station CC:

Charles E. Monty, President Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Yanku Atomic Electric Company 83 Edison Drive 1671 Worchester Road Augusta, Maine 04336 Framingham, Massachusetts 07101 Fr. Charles B. Brinkman Mr. G. D. Whittier Manager - Washington Nuclear Licensing Section-Head Operations Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company l Combustion Engineering, Inc. 83 Edison Drive l 7910 Woodmont Avenue Augusta, Maine 04336 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 .

Mr. J. B. Ran:fazza, President i John A. Ritsher Esquire Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Ropes & Gray 83 Edison Drive 225 Franklin Street August, Maine 04336 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 State Planning Officer Executive Department l 189 State Street 1 Augusta, Maine 04330 l l

Mr. John H. Garrity, Plant Manager l Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company l P. O. Box 408  !

Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Regional Administrator, Region I I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission j 475 Allendale Road '

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 1

First Selectman of Wiscasset Municipal Building U.S. Route 1 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box E Wiscasset, Maine 04578

i f a

ENCLOSURE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE MAIN YANKEE CERTIFICATION GENERAL.

1. Did you conduct 100% of your malfunction performance tests prior to this certification? '

2. If so, please prcvide the test uostracts for these performance tests.

3. Please provide specific information which identifies which performance tests are to be conducted for each of the systems listed in the schedule.

4. Please provide a list of acronyms and their meanings as used in your certification and supporting documentation.

EXCEPTION 1:

1. Does your use of the term "remotely operated equipment" mean that both the equipment and the controls are outside of the control room?

2. If not, are any aspects of the operations simulated? For example, are controls replicated on the control boards so as to maintain physical fidelity?

3. How many and what kinds of functions does this include? For example, are the manually operated isolation valves for safety related systems such as auxiliary feedwater and containment isolation not simulated?

EXCEPTION 2:

1. Please define your use of the term "all available."

EXCEPTION 3:

1. Please explain why you have taken this exception.

EXCEPTION 4:

1. Why shouldn't the scheduling of these modifications conform to the schedule given in Section 5.3 of the Standard?

2. Why do you document only that feedback which results in simulator modifications?

e I

I D

3. Why do you use the term "influences the use of the simulator as a training and testing device" as opposed to the term "detract from training" or testing as used in Section 5.2 of the Standard?

I THE TEST PLAN SECTION 3.1:

1

1. Does this refer to the certification test plan, and not the performance l test plan?

SECTION 5.0

1. Are you aware of the requirement to submit a report of your perfonnance ,

testing every four years in accordance with 10 CFR 55.45b(5)(ii)? '

1988 ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 1, SECTION III, ITEM 1:

1. Please identify NORTH on the control room drawing. '

2. Were any passages or access to any panels or instrumentation altered or i obstructed? )

ITEM 3:

1. Please explain why these modifications are being deferred until after the human factors evaluation, and when they are expected to occur.

PAGE 1, SECTION IV, INSTRUCTOR INTERFACE:

1. Can the instructor perform the functions of an auxiliary operator as required by the Standard?

2. Do you have administrative controls or other means in place which alert the simulator operator when the simulations go outside known reference plant behavior or model design limits?

PAGE 3, SECTION V, SIMULATOR OPERABILITY TESTING:

1. We have interpreted your statement that "all systems and processes are checked at least every four years" to mean that the operability testing '

as defined by the Standard will be conducted annually, and that the performance tests will be conducted at a rate of 25% per year. If this interpretation is not correct, please clarify.

l

i PAGE 3, SECTION VIII

1. If other than your 1985 ATP, please identify the specific testing that you conducted to satisfy the requirement for the conduct of 100%

performance testing prior to certification?

2. Did the testing you performed in 1985 encompass a11 10 of the items discussed in Section 4.0 of the test plan?

PAGE 4. STEADY STATE HEAT BALANCE:

1. Please provide the rationale for your acceptability criteria. Why did you not compare this to plant date?

APPENDIX 0, MODIFICATION REQUEST

SUMMARY

1. Please explain the criteria which you use to determine whether an item is an enhancement or a discrepancy.

2. Please outline the mechanism used for your coding end tracking systems.

3. What criteria do you use to determine whether an item should be rejected or deferred?

1986 ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 2, SECTION VI, TOP 0F THE PAGE, MR

SUMMARY

TABLE:

1. Please break this table out by year.

PAGE 2, SECTION VII, INTEGPATED TEST, LINE 3:

1. Please define RE procedures.

PAGE 3, SURVEILLANCES

1. Do these surveillences address all of the safety related systems?

PAGE 4, SIMULATOR OPERATION TESTING

1. What is included in these tests and how are they evaluated?

PAGE 4, BASELINE TRANSIENTS

1. Why didn't you take the elimination of Appendix B, Test 7, as an .

exception? I

4

)

i l

l APPENDIX C, SIMULATOR OPERABILITY TEST PAGES 25, SECTION 5.0, INTEGRATED TEST:

1. What are the units and ranges for the values in the tables?

2. How did you decide what was a DR?

3. Please submit plant date for start-up. If unavailable, please explain.

4. If this date is not available, can you estimate values based on SME judgement or other available date?

5. Some of the values appear to be discrepant but are not written up; e.g.

Items RI-3401 and RI-1701 in the Section 5.1.2 table. Please explain.

PAGE 9, SECTION 6.0, MALFUNCTIONS:

1. Please provide the abstracts for the performance tests conducted this year.

PAGE 10 - 15, SECTION 7.0, SURVEILLANCES:

1. What criteria are you using to evaluate these?

PAGES 18 - 20, SECTION 10 BASELINE TRANSIENTS, AND ASSOCIATED GRAPHS:

1. How do you know if the annunciators actuated correctly?

2. What was used as baseline data for these transients?

GRAPHS - ALL FW PUMPS TRIP - SG Level :

1. Why is this in inches instead of percent like the rest of the SG 1evel graphs?

i GRAPHS - ALL SG LEVELS:

1. Is this a narrow range or a wide range reading?

GRAPHS - MAIN TURBINE TRIP:  !

1. Is 15% the maximum power as required by the Appendix B.2.2(6) of the Standard?

2. Why does feed flow drop after the turbine trips? l GRAPHS - LOCA AND MSL BREAK- l

1. Why is there no graph of narrow range pressurizer pressure as required by Appendix B of the Standard?

l I

i

'd 1

l GRAPHS - STUCK PORY:

1. Based on the TMI experience in which the pressurizer indication reflected that the pressurizer went solid, isn't it possible that the pressurizer level indicated could be different from the actual level? Do you reflect this? -

2. Is reactor level indication installed in the reference plant? If so, why isn't it included in the graphs as required by Appendix B of the Standard?

PAGE 28, CEA WORTH MEASUREMENTS:

1. How do you account for the apparent violations of the criteria for Groups 1 and E, and for the Total?

APPENDIX 0:

1. How does this core physics test relate to the test reported on pages 6 -

7, and 28 - 29 of the 1986 report?

2. Why wasn't this change in the core model reported in the "Changes Since Last Report" section?

APPENDIX E:

1. Is the simulator performance reflected in the "reperformed" graphs of this Appendix the same as that reflected in the graphs at the end of the 1986 report?

2. Please describe why you chose not tn rerun the ATWS tests to determine if ynu were correct about the differenc.es seen in the first run?

A go .g

{ .

t l i

Distribution:

• DecketuM 1e9

NRC & Local PORs PDI-3 r/f. .

R.' Wessman B. Boger M. Rushbrook

-P.' Sears OGC

.E. Jordan  :

J. Partlow Tech Branch ACRS (10) ,

J. Wiggins, Region I i J. Zwolinski I l

4 l

I l

l l

. - -....--. -,_. .-- -- -.~n.,..._. ...--,n,_. , . , , , - , , . , , - , , - . - - , ,.- -. - c.,- - -,,. s