ML20216B771
| ML20216B771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1998 |
| From: | Wen P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Drake A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| PROJECT-694 NUDOCS 9805180420 | |
| Download: ML20216B771 (4) | |
Text
i
/
May 12, 1998 Mr. Andrew Drake Westinghouse Owners Group Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 5-16 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320-0355
)
l
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-14036-P, REVISION 1, " ELIMINATION OF PERIODIC PROTECTION CHANNEL RESPONSE TIME TESTS"
Dear Mr. Drake:
By letter dated January 22,' 1998, the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) submitted Westinghouse topical report WCAP-14036-P, Revision 1, for NRC review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additional information. The attachment to this
. letter identifies the information required. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk and reference WOG Project No. 694.
If you wish to meet with the staff to accelerate the information transfer, the staff would welcome such a meeting at a mutually convenient time. If you have any questions on this matter, I may be contacted by phone,301/415-2832, or by email, pxw@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Peter C. Wen, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental j
Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 694
Attachment:
Questions on topical WCAP -
14036-P, Rev 1
- fd { h h cc:
Mr. Jack Bastin, Director Regulatory Affairs Westinghouse Electric Corporation 11021 Rockville Pike, Suite 107 Rockville, MD 20852 9fGJ>
l DISTRIBUTION:
aPUBUC TEssig FAkstulewicz JWermlel JMauck PGEB R/F PLoeser PWen OGC ACRS JRoe DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\pxw\\w14036p1.rai OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PGEBg-Q hOj NAME PWen:sw Pcw/
FAkstulewi DATE 05/ ll / 98 05//2./98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY
-n 9805180420 990512 PDR TOPRP EMVWEST C
i l
l A IEC y'
4 UNITED STATES g
,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D.C. N1 5
May 12, 1998 r
Mr. Andrew Drake Westinghouse Owners Group Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 5-16 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320-0355
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE i
TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-14036-P, REVISION 1," ELIMINATION OF I
PERIODIC PROTECTION CHANNEL RESPONSE TIME TESTS" i
Dear Mr. Drake:
j By letter dated January 22,1998, the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) submitted Westinghouse topical report WCAP-14036-P, Revision 1, for NRC review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additionalinformation. The attachment to this letter identifies the information required. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk and reference WOG Project No. 694.
If you wish to meet with the staff to accelerate the information transfer, the staff would welcome such a meeting at a mutually convenient time. If you have any questions on this matter, I may be contacted by phone,301/415-2832, or by email, pxw@nrc. gov, Sincerely,
~ C. tJJ Peter C. Wen, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 694
Attachment:
Questions on topical WCAP -
14036-P, Rev 1 cc:
Mr. Jack Bastin, Director Regulatory Affairs Westinghouse Electric Corporation 11921 Rockville Pike, Suite 107 Rockville, MD 20852 l
t REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i
ON WESTINGHOUSE TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-14036-P, REVISION 1
" ELIMINATION OF PERIODIC PROTECTION CHANNEL RESPONSE TIME TESTS" i
The basis for Topical Report WCAP-14036 is that for each instrument for which elimination of response time testing (RTT) is requested, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was done, response time critical components identified, bounding failure values determined, and the units tested to determine the effect of those bounding failure values on response time. It was shown that any failure which will significantly affect the RTT result will also cause the unit to fail calibration.
In order for the staff to approve this topical report for use by licensees, the validity of each j-step in the process must be verified by the staff. To do this response to the following questions is necessary:
1.
Was the FMEA adequate, and were the correct components picked for test?
Please provide the staff with copies of the FMEA. In order to understand the FMEA and i
judge its adequacy, please include copies of the assembly and schematic drawings of l
the various components for which relief from RTT is requested.
2.
Was the postulated failure the actual worst case? Is an open unit bounded by an l
incres e in resistance, and is a short bounded by a decrease in resistance value?
Plea, provide the staff with the analysis showing that capacitor values can increase a l
maximum of 25%, and resistors a maximum of 200% Please show that a short or open in these components will have an effect no worse than that caused by the maximum stated increases.
l 3.
WCAP-14036 states that testing showed that an increase in RTT results sufficient to be significant will affect the calibration, and thereby be detected. Is the calibration methodology identical for each licensee? If not, will calibration methodologies be L
affected? Indicate what attributes a calibration must have in order to ensure RTT results l
are detected in the calibration.
4.
WCAP-14036 states that component degradation is detectable if the post-component change calibration inaccuracy exceeded 0.5% ls this considered beyond reasonable drift values? In those cases where an instrument calibration inaccuracy exceeds 0.5%,
what actions will licensees be required to take? Wi!! this action be the same for different
' calibration procedures?
WCAP-14036 defined the response time in two different ways. The first definition, taken 5.
r from technical specifications, is the time from when the process pararreter exceeds the setpoint until the protective system is capable of responding. The second definition is the time for the trip signal to reach 63% of full value. The staff believes the first is the l
correct definition, and the second is the definition of a circuit time constant, i.e., the value being 1-1/e per time constant. Please show that the trigger va!ue of each circuit under discussion is no greater than 63% of the final value, or use the first definition of response time throughout the topical report.
ATTACHMENT
a l
2 -
6.
If the word " test" in Technical Specifications is replaced with " verify," please show how the continued test of components not covered by this topical report will be assured.
Confirm that elimination of RTT for additional components not described in the topical report will require staff review and approval prior to implementation.
.{
k 7.
Describe how the resumption of RTT will occur if a component covered by this topical q
report is replace with a component not covered by this topical report.
I 8.
Describe how the plant technical specifications will identify exactly which components
{
require RTT, and which have been exempted.
l i
l l
(
I