ML20196D320
| ML20196D320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1988 |
| From: | Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rossi C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812090033 | |
| Download: ML20196D320 (7) | |
Text
.
[(pa no $g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ti
'j W ASHINGTO N, D. C. ;t0555
%*****/
DEC 2 1989 HEMORANDUM FOR:
Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR FROM:
Edward J. Butcher, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Divicion of Operational Events Asr.essment NRR
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING WITH NUMARC TASK GROUP WHICH IS WRITino HEW STS FOR EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS On Thursday, October 20, 1988, the staff met with the NUMARC task group which is writing the new Standard Technical Specifications (STS) emergency core cooling system (ECCS) sections to hear their early estimate of anticipated technical changes. The staff was also interested in discerning any technical change that might require a review effort outside the normal STS process.
The owners groups commented that the following technical changes are to be proposed with the new STS:
1.
A new Acticn Statement for PWRs to give an allowed outage time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />
{
for different types of equipment out of service in different trains; e.g.,
a high pressure injection puc.p in one train and a low pressure injection pump in the other train.
The bases for such a provision would be that the safety analyses for ECCS nodel "total ECCS flow to the RCS vs. reactor coolant pressure" instead of "ECCS trains in service."
2.
For PVRs provide separate LCOs, instead of one combined LCO, for boron concentration, volume, and temperature for tsnks in the safety injection system. The owners groups hope to demonstrate that this arrangement will justify a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> instead of a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> allowed outage time for at least the boron concentration portion of the specification.
3.
For PWRs, relocate LCOs for safety injection tank instrumentation from the instrumentation section to the systen specifications.
4.
Delete the requirement to perform a surveillance on the ope'ibility of the actuation of safety injection tank isolation valves when the plant is operating above a specified terperature and pressure.
The owners aroups comented that the valves are locked closed (electrical actuation power removed) above the specified terperature and pressure.
Therefore, they added, to periodically energize the circuits to assure that
\\
)
the valves can close automatically is meaningless.
-/ f '
G'l'/[ff'a CONTACT: Mark Reinhart
/
[/ b) 3 x23139 lR=%80 nei&+c
. g; p uo}
e
'b l
s DEC %
1*c3
, 5.
Relocate the specifications on containment surp trisodium phosphate to the FSAR because trisodium phosphate is used not for safety considerations but for post LOCA pH control to reduce stress corrosion.
The staf f centioned that the SRP (see attached SRP pages)specified the use of trisodium phosphate as a treans of iodine removal.
The owners groups responded that it is now used only to reduce stress corrosion.
6.
Combine core and containment cooling system specifications into a single specification.
The owners groups ccreented that this proposal would be made utilizing risk based methods develeped by EPRI and GE.
They also commented that while the subject was introduced at this meeting for information. the formal preposal would be made as a topical report.
l The owners groups comented that while other technical changes could develop.
the above are the most significant ones known at the time of the meeting.
The staff did rot identify any technical change that would require a review effort outside the normal STS review process.
Orit nal Sv:d b i
5, f r. /v,,s Richard L. Em:
Edward J. Butche,. Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment. NDR
Enclosure:
Heeting Attendees 015TRIBilT10N:
Please see attached i
Mtte, p (HIN/HTG/ HEW STS/EMG/COLG/ MARK)
- (See previous concurrence)
- TSB:00EA:NRR
- TSB:00EA:NRR DEST:NRR C:TSB:00Ek FMReinhart:ptre DCFischer FWHodges EJButche 11/14/68 11/16/E8 11/,4 S/88
/4/ L /8.
^
2-l 5.
Relocate the specifications on containment sump trisodium phosphate to the FSAR because trisodium phosphate is used not for safety considerations but for post LOCA pH control to reduce stress corrosion.
The staff questioned if the SRP specified the use of trisodium phosphate as a means of iodine removal, but the owners groups responded that it is now used only to reduce r. tress corrosion, j
i 6.
Combine core and containment cooling system specifications into a single i
specification.
[
i t
i The owners groups commented that this proposal would be made utilizino risk l
j based methods developed by EPRI and GE. They also comented that while i
the subject was introduced at this meeting for infonnation, the formal proposal would be made as a topical report.
The owners groups connented that while other technical changes could develop, the above are the most significant ones known at the time of the neeeting.
i The staff did not identify any technical change that would require a review rffort outside the normal STS review process.
Edward J. Butcher, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events A,sessment. NRR j
Enclosure:
Meeting Attendees l
DISTRIBUTION:
Please see attached i
l l
J Qh 1
(MIN T0/hEWSTS/EMG/ COL"G/ MARK)
EA:NRR TSB:00EA:NRR DEST:NRR C:TSD:DOEA:NRR
]
hart:pmc CCFischer MWodges EJButcher
/88 11/4/88 11/ /83 11/
/88
_... _ _. _ _.,,.. ~. _ - _ _ _ -
-t
- ,-t e
i g
DEC 2 1988 o
DISTRIBUTION:
TEMurley OTSB Members
_PDR JHSnierek CHBerlinger JCentral;Filesi FJMiraglia W0Lanning OTSB R/F DMCrutchfield JLieberman, OE DOEA R/F SAVarga LShao BKGrimes JWRoe CIGrimes FJCongel SDRichardson FGillespie GHolahan Regional Administrators NRC Participants i
l
{
i i
1 l
1 i
l 1
i j
l 1
1 l
I i
)
sRP c.
Promotion of Containment Mixina Because the effectiveness of the containment spray system depends on a well-mixed containment atmosphere, all detign features enhancing postaccident mixing should be considered. Where necessary, forced air ventilation should be provided to avoid stagnart air regions.
d.
Spray Nozzles The nozzles used in the containment spray system should be of a design that minimizes the possibility of clogging while producing drop sizes effective for iodine absorption.
The nozzles should not have internal moving parts such as swirl vanes, turbulence promoters, etc.
They should not have orifices or internal restrictions which would narrow the flow passage to less than 1/4-inch diameter.
Detailed information on the drop size distribution for the nozzle, such as a histogram, should be provided.
Designations such as "average," "mean," and "median" numbers do not provide sufficiently detailed information to permit an independent evaluation of the performance of the nozzle, g
e.
In.iection Spray Solution The partition of iodine between liquid and gas phases is enhanced by the alkalinity of the solution.
The spray system should be designed such that the spray solution maintains the highest possible pH, within material compatibility constraints.
This requirement is satisfied I
by a spray pH in the range of 8.5 to 10.5.
A minimum partitioning i
of iodine between liquid and gas phases hss also been demonstrated
)
for boric acid solutions with trace levels of impurities (Ref. 5).
l In this case, pH requirements are determined solely by material compatibility constraints, which are reviewed by CMEB.
Iodine scrubbing credit is given for spray solutions whose chemistry, including any additives, has been demonstrated to be effec'?ve for iodine absorption and retention urder postaccident conditions.
Both theoretical and experimental verification are required.
The spray solutions shown in Table 6.5.2-1 have been shown to be effective for removal of elemental iodine.
Acceptable values for the instantaneous elemental iodine partition coefficient for these spray solutions are also shown in Table 6.5.2-1.
Reference 6 provides information on spray solutions that are effective for removal of organic iodides.
l Table 6.5.2-1 Spray Solutions and Acceptable Partition Coefficients Spray solution Partition coefficient sodium hydroxide in boric see Figure 6.5.2-1; ph values acid solution are a sumed at room temperature hydrazine (50 ppm
- 5) 5000 boric acid ('1500-2500 ppm boron) 50 i
water (plain or demineralized) 100 I
trisodium phosphate (added to see Figure 6.5.2-1; same pH sump during recirculation mode) dependence as sodium hydroxide solutions 6.5.2-4 Rev.1-July 1981
3Ah o
. o 5000 t/
/
1000 ~
f I
I
/
/'
500 c
/
i
/
(
83 c.
100 1
I
.I I
I 5,0
=
5 6
7 8
9 jo 11 Spray pH Fig.
6.5.2-1 Partition Coefficient vs. Spray pH For Solution Containing Sodium Hydroxide (Ref. 4) 6.5.2-13 Rev. 1 - July 1981
. u.2 - #-.;-. _.. _ -
o.
u.- -
...-m--.
.s-.
.-y,
,,'.e
- s e
MEETIMI ATTENDEES Hage Aff11iation James Lahti Westinghouse Stewart Webster Combustion Engineering Jerry C. Jones OFC IHR CG Jacquie Hinda IOkE Walt Smith NUMARC George Smith Westinghouse Rob Woolley GAISC-SPEC-SERVICES David Fischer NRC/NRR/OfSB Mark Reinhart NRC/NRR/0TSB Millard Wohl NRC/NER/CfrSB Kulin Desai NRC/NRR/CtrSB 1
Frank Ashe NRC/06P/CPPD Chu-yu Liang NRC/NRR/SRXB i
4 1
i i
e