ML20211H757
| ML20211H757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/13/1986 |
| From: | George Thomas Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hodges M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C630 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-10 NUDOCS 8606260032 | |
| Download: ML20211H757 (16) | |
Text
_
.e e
W & ./
'*, .. s
- ,,^ UNITED STATES 5\ ,< q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
] l WASMNG TON. D. C. 20555 JUN 131986
%..v.../
MEMORANDUM FOR: M. W. Hodges, Chief Reactor Systems Branch Division of BWR Licensing THRU: T. Collins, Section Leader, Section A Reactor Systems Branch Division of BWR Licensing FROM: George Thomas Reactor Systems Branch Division of SWR Licensing
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH BWR OWNERS GROUP ON EMERGENCY PROCEDURES GUIDELINES I. GENERAL On June 7,1986, the NRC staff met with representatives of the BWP Owners Group on emergency procedures to discuss the open items from a previous meeting which was held on December 17-18, 1985. The meeting agenda is included in Enclosure 1 to this memorandum. Enclosure 2 is a list of meeting attendees.
i The Owners Group representative informed us that Revision 4 and Appendix A of the EPGs will be submitted to the staff by the end of August 1986. At the-last quarter of 1986 we expect a submittal of Appendices B and C to the guidelines, which are documents discussing the basis for the steps and cautions in the guidelines.
II. MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
- a. The morning session was spent mainly on the open items from the previous meeting of December 17-18, 1985. The staf f questions and the BWR owners' responses are included in Enclosure 1.
- b. The afternoon session with the NRC management and the Owners Group started with the introductory remarks of R. Bernero. R. Bernero described the necessity of containment venting. He indicated that every BWR should have proper methods of venting and that the staff will undertake whatever measures are necessary to assure this capability.
- c. G. Lainas asked about the validation of the EPGs. The owner representative stated that the guidelines are validated using plant simulators. The usefulness of reviewing PGPs of individual plants which are based on earlier version of EPGs, Rev. 2 and Rev 3 was also questioned by Gus Lainas. The owners suggested that it is beneficial for the staff to review the writers guide, the validation program, and the training program i now, but that review of the plant specific technical guidelines should follow staff issuance of the Rev. 4 SER.
Contact:
G. Thomas, RSB, x28299 ,ECI O'gJ-d/ 6 lfl.3
(&(e(b6%GM2 j )9 M fp
Ja,13 1986
- d. Wayne Hodges expressed a concern about the very slow pace of the Owners Group in finalizing the Rev. 4 of the EPGs. The owners explained that all members must approve each revision and that getting such agreement by all utilities requires extensive education, and is therefore time consuming.
- e. T. Rogers gave a brief summary of the criteria used for the EPGs. He discussed RPV control, primary containment control, secondary containment and radioactivity release control guidelines. He indicated that the contingencies C1 (Title - Alternate Level Control) and C6 (Title -
Primary Containment Flooding) are changed from the previous revision.
Contingency #3 (Title - Steam Cooling) is not finalized since final calculation for the steam flow through each bundle is not completed.
- f. J. Hulman expressed a concern regarding the conflicting procedures between App. R (Fire) procedures and the EPGs. The BWR representative indicated that in the introduction of the EPGs it is stated that for certain specific events such as fire, tornado, earthquake blackout, etc.,
additional auxiliary procedures will be used to supplement the E0Ps. He stressed that all plant procedures should be reviewed to assure that other procedures are compatible with the EPGs.
t Y f eo ge omos Reactor Systems Branch Division of BWR Licensing ,
1
Enclosures:
1 1. Meeting Handouts List of Attendees cc w/ enclosures:
R. Bernero j R. W. Houston J. Stefano G. Lainas D. Wagner D. Vassallo F. Eltawila J. Hulman M ,
D. Shum R. Anand R. Pichumani C. Goodman J. Kudrick A. Notafrancesco I. Schoenfeld W. Butler S. Stern
cuanxe a 4
PURPOSE AND SCOPE DISCUSS DRAFT REV. 4 0F THE BWR EMERGENCY PROCEDURE GUIDELINES:
O CURRENT STATUS OF EPG WORK 0 OVERVIEW OF EPG DRAFT REV. 4 0 OPEN DISCUSS 10N 1
I l
6/5/86 ELC - 1 !
- \
l
a , : rctort':27 i I
CURRENT STATUS OF EPG WORK 0 REV 3 SER ISSUED BY NRC NOV 83 0 DEVELOPt1ENT OF REV. 4 DEC 82 - NOV 85 0 UTILITY REVIEW AND TRAINING CC+NFERENCE NOV 85 0 GE DESIGN REVIEW DEC 85 O NRC TECHNICAL DISCUSSION DEC 85 0 OPEN ITEM RESOLUTION JMi 86 - JUNE 86 0 ShROG fEETING JUNE 86 6/5/86 ELC
6 I
NRC QUESTIONS RE EPGs REV 4AC QUESTION 1:
WAS SUPERHEATED STEAM CONSIDERED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE MINIMUM RPV FLOODING PRESSURE AND THE MINIMUM ALTERNATE RPV FLOC' DING PRESSURES?
RESPONSE
NO, BUT SATURATED STEAM IS LIMITING.
6/5/85 STR-1 l
NRC QUESTIONS RE EPGs REV 4AC QUESTION 2 CAN ALTERNATE INJECTION SYSTEMS (AIS) BE SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED DEADHEADED?
RESPONSE
MOST, BUT NOT ALL, AIS HAVE S0tE TYPE OF MINIMUM FLOW PROTECTION.
6/5/85 STR-2
NRC QUESTIONS RE EPGs REV 4AC QUESTION 3 CAN LOW PRESSURE INJECTION SYSTEMS BE SUCCESSFU'LY THROTTLED TO CONTROL RPV WATER LEVEL DURING AN ATWS?
RESPONSE
DEPENDS UPON THE. SYSTEM AND THE ACTUAL REACTOR POWER - EPGs HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO SPECIFY A BROADER RPV WATER LEVEL CONTROL BAND FOR THIS CONDITION.
6/5/85 STR-3
NRC QUESTIONS RE EPGs REV 4AC QUESTION 4 SHOULD NPSH BE LIMITING IN CONTINGENCY #1?
RESPONSE
NO - EPGs HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO SPECIFY EARLIER RETURN FROM CONTINGENCY #1, PROVIDING INCREASED NPSH PROTECTION.
l 6/5/85 STR-4 l
l
NRC QUESTIONS RE EPGs REV 4AC QUESTION 5 SHOULD RPV WATER LEVEL BE LGERED TO BELOW THE TOP OF THE ACTIVE FUEL (TAF) TO OPTIMlZE PLANT RESPONSE TO ATWS?
~
RESPONSE
YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDIT10NS
- EPGs HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO SPECIFY AN RPV WATER LEVEL CCNTROL BAND BELOW TAF UNDER THESE CONDIT1ONS.
i O
E l
CURRENT STATUS OF EPG WORK O REV 3 SER ISSUED BY NRC NOV 83 0 DEVELOPI/ENT OF REV. 4 DEC 82 - NOV 85 0 UTILITY REVIEW AND TRAINING CONFERENCE NOV 85 0 GE DESIGN REVIEW DEC 85 0 NRC TECHNICAL DISCUSSION DEC 85 0 CPEN ITEM RESCLUTION JAN 86 - JUNE 86 0 ShROG EETING JUNE 86 6/5/86 ELC - 2
EPG DEVELOPENT THREE MILE ISLAND MARCH, 1979 SBLOCA GUIDELINES DECEMBER, 1979 FIRST SYMPT 0fMTIC EPG FOR BWR/1-5 (REV 0) JUNE, 1980 EXTENDED TO INCLUDE BWR/6 (REV 1) JANUARY, 1981 EXTENDED FOR REACTIVITY CONTROL (REV 2) SEPTEMBER, 1982 EXTENDED TO SECONDARY CONTAIN!ENT (REV 3) DECEMBER, 1982 EXTENCED FOR HYDROGEf1 CONTROL (REV 4) JUNE, 1986 6/5/86 STR - 1 l
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREENTS FOR EPGs
! CRITERIA USED BY THE !
! EPC TO DEVELOP THE EPGs l EPGs MUST:
- 1. BE SYMPTOMATIC 0 ENTRY 0 EXECUTION OF OPERATOR ACTIONS
- 2. NOT REQUIRE THAT THE OPERATOR IDENTIFlY AN INITIATING EVENT ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW TO PROCEED
~
- 3. SPECIFY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE INITIATING EVENT OR EVENTS
- 4. SPECIFlY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FOR THE COMPLETE SPECTRUM OF EMERGENCIES 0 DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS 0 BEYOND DESIGN SASIS ACCIDENTS 0 WITHIN DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS 6/5/86 STR - 2 l l
1 4
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREENTS FOR EPGs (CONTINUED) i l EPGs NUST:
) -
- 5. SPEClFY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FOR ANY TECHANISTICALLY POSSIBLE PLANT CONDITION WHICH CAN BE PRACTICABLY ADDRESSED,
]
IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS PROBABILITY OF OCCURANCE i i
0 MULTIPLE FAILURES 0 OPERATOR ERRORS
- 6. NOT REQUIRE ACTIONS WHICH fMY NOT BE POSSIBLE 1.
O SYSTEM CAPABILITIES j 0 OPERATOR CAPABlilTIES c ,
i 7. SPEClFY THE BEST POSSIBLE ACTIONS, IRRESPECT1VE OF LICENSING i
OR DESIGN BASIS ASSUNPil0NS/ RESTRICTIONS 0- PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR OPERATOR ACTION BEYOND TECHNICAL j SPECIFICATION LIMITS UNDER DEGRADED CONDITIONS i
0 NO RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS "N0 OPERATOR ACTION FOR
! 10 MINUTES"
.t DESIGN BASIS) ANALYSIS
.r, 6/5/86 STR - 3 i
l i
. . , _,. , - , _ . . _ , - . _ . _ . - - . _ . _ _ - -, , , - . - _ - . - _ - - _ . - . . - . . . - . - _ - . , , - . _ , . = .
I i
i FUNCTIONAL REQUIREENTS FOR EPGs (CONTINUED)
EPGs MUST:
1
- 9. SPECIFlY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FOR PLANTS AS CURRENTLY BUILT
~i IRRESPECTIVE OF MODIFICATIONS WHICH t/AY BE INCORPORATED AT A LATER DATE (EXCEPT INSTRUMENT RANGE EXTENSIONS) i
- 10. SPECIFY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FOR USE OF ALL USEFUL PLANT i
EQUIPMENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS QUALIFICATION OR SAFETY CLASSIFICATION ,
- 11. BE APPLICABLE TO ALL BhR NSSS PRODUCT LINES AND CONTAINENT DESIGNS J
4
.f A
i i
6/5/86 STR - 4 f
1 i
N , (f 30 A 8 , h- 5" C, U
Rf eyob,a . ta u / Drs c Rcs .(aog 4 s 2 -s y 9/tt h Q.f A)1t it /D8L/RSS ( yor) 45'2- 7485 F~n Rau k & L.rt wici. ,ciu / D 2 o f I".' i;
' ' c i) a ??
'!?-
&:sll 0cllin.: ////Llpf;/..! . ?:i) - '
h d I. kNSTRack M9A/tAL'9@_ '
4%%%
07442./.lo..,/4f t
/11/ //j'pgL ' r 73 :: , cj777 scAdm ot?R D8L V?2~? P3
~d ? Ars/b 9, , ',0)/,flF06 y] up-7d P.S. Smi +h C,PU Nwdeo.r SaRg Andqsis
~
zos.299 2cs:
6 IF% sy:,:- R o w s Oeemws. Ene~ewse,Lc_ (916 9%-09?o T Pc ev.nwz wan/ BBL f FCR 4'j2. '/ + 8T Ll' u,a S .- na.% ot :.. 4 . . ,4 c .
sez anns s mpm.pae % 2-m T2.G.G - s~ ca.>n,-n,,
w - ~ m v 7 a a c u :-
W G(tTLCr" /d(cIDG PC A - n:.cu ru. ce ; c w u.ica;elPs bcce fo ,r e 66 40 s '?as - 536 3.-
j l.AinAS NE Ll O G L-i
. _ . -_ __ _ ~ _ , _ .
,__.l-
. . .- : - . a t
\ 3Ld TR curJca s E P4 Mr4
~
- h. /l/ ,
0pxf4M idIU2 /Di3L fie S &
FA fot>k Ei.rses:t., a sex / psto //" E 8
.A.deks A&cenjL/.A /.u!,t',/ 044 j'f08 10 # .8a t/e, il22/O8L,/d& 9-J. J. Slegno (cL PH)
'5 $\h. gjut/(Dat/Swi) b11' A p b L - b 6 uf n - q 4
3 . 3cimme N.st / BBL PcB RAT na nn2> NRR l39t l pig fn 0s//in s unyt)eg i J Kfy llaltn.9n NR {DSL/PSB E ?tJ% 0+ i~ /: /:c/DdG.
bG4cb ?cw G,c' 7 3 Sm'bh C,PU Mudeos - EEC S.Tmm\ho 09emmas %sem h. >
! tb <-
Or cs % S o - d3P- b 2OG 8FC v .'. 4 f
CkW,m ,
l$u 5 di/HJ l
'P/Jc.
m13 kaxdo iyg,c
%Aj/ o K /8 B
% to bigts ,aKg/oS c-/456 ciyey % A ,w:,".ji:Ga g Da coapar ivujoiic, pp D- SW1 k FALlOu/lc'rh
% n.a x o tuu joaL (1% i- L .
e l
m - . , , __ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . , . - _ _ . -