ML20236S155
| ML20236S155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/06/1987 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711240257 | |
| Download: ML20236S155 (44) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ 1
- s i
November 6, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. H Executive Director for Operations FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 123 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements _-(CRGR) met on Wednesday, i October 21, 1987, from 9-12. A_ list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enclosure 1). The following item was addressed at the meeting: 1. A. Thadani and F. Burrows, NRR, presented for CRGR review a proposed SER approving Westinghouse Topical Report, " Steam Generator Low-Low Water Level Portection System Modification to Reduce Feedwater-Related Trips," i WCAP-11325. After discussion, the CRGR recommended approval of the ' staff's SER subject to modification as discussed in Enclosure 2.- 2. A..Thadani and F. Burrows, NRR, presente'd for CRGR_ review a proposed SER- ~ approving Westinghouse Topical. Report, " Modification of the Steam Generator Low-Low Level Trip Setpoint to Reduce Feedwater-Related Trips," WCAP-11342. Based on its review, the.CRGR recommended' approval of the staff's SER. This review is discussed in Enclosure 3. 3. A. Thadani and D. Fieno,.NRR, presented for CRGR review a~ proposed SER approving Amendment 19 to General Electric Licensing Topical Report l NEDE-24011-A-P, '_' General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel." After discussion of the proposel, the Committee recommended approval of the amendment. This matter is discussed in Enclosure 4. j ( 4. A. Thadani and H. Richings, NRR,-presented for CRGR review a proposed SER approving the BWROG Proposed for " Modification.of the Requirements for Control Rod Drop Accident Mitigating Systems,"-Amendment 17 of Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel." After discussion of the proposal, the_ Committee recommended i approval of the amendment. 'This matter is discussed in Enclosure 5. i i In accordance with the E00's July 18, 1983 directive concerning " Feedback and ~i Closure on CRGR Reviews," a written response is required.from the. cognizant office to report agreement or disagreement with CRGR recommendations in these minutes. The response, which is required within five working days _after _ receipt-of these meeting minutes, is to be forwarded to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with the CRGR recommendations, to the ED0 for decisionmaking. l i hh et 8711240257 371106 PDR REV9P NR9CRGR MEETIN9123 PDR w
y I t. p; ,. Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim'Conran' (492-9855). Driginal $igned Byg E; D Juden Edward L.JJordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures: Commission (5) SECY-CRGR Members Office Directors Regional Administrators W. Parler-A. Thadani F. Burrows D. Fieno H. Richings i Distribution: w/o encl. 3 CentralnE1,le r' J. Johnson (w/ enc.) PDR (NRC/CRGR) R. Hernan-(w/ enc.) i S. Treby J. Conran (w/ enc.) -l L W. Little CRGR CF (w/ enc.) i M. Lesar J. Heltemes (w/ enc.)- CRGR SF (w/ enc.) l ad L D} C : CRGR:AE0D : AE0.DW
- C/C 00 :
_..._...... y_.._...../ _'.... ~ NAM n (cg 1 mes : n-DATE :, 1/4 /87 11/d?/87 11/dl/87- ~ OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
j 1 l l i LIST OF ATTENDEES j CRGR MEETING NO. 123 J 1 October 21, 1987 CRGR MEMBERS i 1 -E. Jordan l W. Kane (for T. Martin) .) S.-Treby (for J. Scinto) -J. Sniezek R. Bernero OTHERS l 1 J. Zerbe L. Bell l W. Jones l R. Lobe l A. Thadani J. Pulsipher j C. Sakenas J. Joyce 1 F. Burrows 'l D. Fieno 4 H. Richings l T. Collins R. Hernan l J J 1 --l ____.______________L_-
i ) to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 220 Topical Report, WCAP-11325 - Steam Generator Low-Low Water Level Protection System Modification to Reduce Feedwater-Related Trips Topic Proposed conceptual modifications to the steam generator low-low level trip setpoint.
Background
A. Thadani and F. Burrows, NRR, presented for review by the. Committee.a concept l _ The proposed concept is based on the_ staff's review ofra Westinghouse Topical for voluntary modification to the steam generator low-low level trip setpoint. Report, " Steam Generator Low-Low Water Level Protection System Modification to Reduce Feedwater-Related Trips" - WCAP-11325. The proposed conceptual' design change would introduce a time delay in steam generator ' low-low water level reactor trip and auxiliary feedwater system actuation th' rough the use of. timers in the protection system logic. Copies of the briefing slides used by the staff to guide the presentations and discussions-at this meeting are attached to this enclosure. The package submitted for review by CRGR in this matter'was transmitted by. memorandum dated September 16, 1987, Thomas E. Murley to Edward L. Jordan; the package included the following review documents as attached: : Draft Letter.to Roger A. Newton, Chairman of the Westinghouse Owners' Group,.Regarding Acceptance of Topical Report WCAP-11325. : NRC Staff Evaluation of Topical Report WCAP-11325 - : Response to Requirements for Content of Package Submitted for CRGR Review. l 0 Discussion i The major comments and questions raised by CRGR at.this meeting regarding the proposed conceptual modification to the steam generator low-low level trip setpoint were as follows: 1. The Committee questioned the staff on the source-of'feedwater system scram; i.e., old plants.or new plants, what are the primary causes,. and what are the benefits;in relation to. potential impacts on_ safety. The staff stated that the scram data provided is Westinghouse data and that the staff is currently evaluating LER data to access' the impact; of feedwater system scrams on Westinghouse reactors. In' addition,.the 4 staff indicated that it would be difficult tol predict with any degree of certainty what the overall affect-of-the proposed concept would be on scram reduction if implemented. _ After additional discussion, the staff suggested that the scram reduction might be in the range of. ) l L
1.
- 10 to 20 percent. This led to a' discussion of the benefits versus safety based on scram reduction.
The staff stated the safety-l significance of the proposed modifications are minimal and the benefit is a reduction in the number of unnecessary challenges to i the Reactor Protection System and other safety systems plus the associated systes transients. 2. The Committee questioned the staff on how specific plants would meet single failure criteria. The sta.ff stated-that individual plants that choose to implement the. conceptual design changes would be required to~ meet the existing single failure criteria currently in place at that plant. This discussion led to questions on the adequacy. of. the topical reports' human factors section. After considerable discussion between the staff and the CRGR, it was agreed-that the staff would expand the human factors section of. the topical report. 3. The Comittee questioned the staff on the reliability of the timer lto be used and what the impact would be or) a channel quality as a result - of total timer failure. The staff indicated that there were a number. of different timer types that could be Used and that have demonstrated. reliability. Due to the number of available choices, at the time of. implementation by an individual plant, that plant would provide details about the specific timer to be used..The staff indicated that the effects of one total timer failure would be negligible because protection systems are designed to provide redundant instrumentation channels for each protective function. The: question then arose relating to the i possible impact on the NRC staff if a number of plants chose to'imple-ment the proposed concept in the absence of an actual design. The staff indicated that plants would be grouped in accordance with design requirements and that the staff would perform their review based on plant groupings. 4. The Committte questioned the staff on the adequacy of the review of applicable heat transfer models. The Committee after discussion with the staff noted that the CRGR staff review did not-include a review of any heat transfer models. After additional discussion the staff agreed to review the adequacy of DBA separately. The Committee also raised concerns about the impact on safety of a time delay at high power levels. The staff noted that delays at high power levels would be very short and that the impact on safety would be minimum due to the very short duration. After additional discussion, a compromise was reached that would not allow a time delay above P-8 power levels. Recommendations to the EDO On the basis of their review of this matter, including the discussions with: the staff at this meeting, CRGR recommended in favor of approving the topical: report WCAP-11325, subject to the following: an upgrade of the human factors. section of the topical report, a satisfactory staff review of DBA considera-tions, and a revision limiting the use of.a time delay to below P-8 power-levels.
B N S O" C I S I T P CI S ER T T W O O R D R E P R T U A L L B E E V R E F L - R 7 RE E T 8 T A AW G 9 WD . E N 1 WE OF l L i E t 1 RC OU E 2 TD AE M RR E R NO R E ET G S G B MN R O AO I E T C T T A S C C I F O 5D I 2O 3M 1 M 1 - E PT A S C Y W S C I P O T
N O IT N A O U L ITA A C VE IF L ~ I D A O A C M I D N N N H E G G CE N I A S T O E I D D F T N O A W U D T E O E Y N I R S R E VE G O A M R K P M EL C O M C P A R U R M B P S N I
1 ,s FIGURE 4.4A AUTOMATIC TRIPS VS. SYSTEM BY MAJOR ROOT CAUSE CATEGORIES ALL PLANTS 88 8 noor omsse .7, TOTAL TitlP5 : 12M E MUMAN PERCENT COMPLETE : HE ] M ema I-.. I l ,.q, g g 44 as y mm a W T E RMP STEAM NUP COND RCS CRO OTHER \\ 6& SYSTDA [ fub e hm 1 6 +.4 6 %m
seenouem [/ s f it o \\ AJ b j ammesmenosaw $cl k_ m
- n.,
-m . ~ 2 T el ! 3 H1-HI LEVEL d wmM _m ase mpa l g ) 7 - ; m-f, e.etwnwammaar NARROW 5 / M< RANGE \\ d [. j,' Pm m ermen % > Q s Tl Illto 'r r 5_ _ _ LO-LO LEVEL ^# (l7%) w e,,,,,,,,,, p.m nm, } / t 2 1i p y. l g thed ,-E-8 l 8 i i f_' l y usemene gementhuasan % 'li a ai I L }1 6' l. Sununtessuuntanssha V h T ,,,,, / 1 .,a j
- 5.hr,fh
^ ^ ARy on=,mmamam M '.' 5M k
3 H A C 2 TA 2 M S 2 I M 1 G A 2 F. N F 0 /. y2 ITL F. 9 AA S 1 TN
- 8 I
R= G I L 1 NI E V
- 7 E
S I I L 1 6 G. A_ SM 1 S VE 5 ?1 O L P T I O R @4 SS L T 1 E APY N 3 I B 6I S 1 R RU .4T R 2 T N 1 ECO 1 1 I I RTT 0 UAC 1 GME T9 9 F O T 7 % I 2 5 8 1 9 3 E8 T O U R N 7 S E E AP P T L M I E 6 R L FR T WA S L O .~
- 5 OO A C T T
N T O T A RC T N C 4 E P C EA R 3 BE EP M R .~
- 2 U
?1 N o o o o 0 o o o o o 0 s 4 s m 1 $SO 8 g 2Z
H W SE T N S E YL / A \\E N R A E E TA R W U T D P E U E F R F E N Y O I Y I L T S T R S R I E R O E V E L T) E A% V S E R W0 S O S 0 / 3 F Y 31 E Y F / A R E R DL E T 0 R EE WI C5 E W MD S R R O R I W O E R V E O O P E O P O L P I F T E N1 H B A% S E( R S W G E A S R0 G S T O H T TE 0F P P L NN1 O NE N L E E LGDS I V A T AE S C E S T A L CP NE D P E E A S A L S Y MAE E L P A R K R P D E L I A E L B N OE0G CEO U N B A A NI OT5E E WO L A T T AMLS ,D H L C T P O N G E 4F 0 C R P 4 N P E 3 T E C O NT .N I ED .E S L O C C ) L D C D E 0R Y A C C A DN N D 2E A R N A A L E A ~ S 5 U O O F 5 S Y ,F E V 2 OT3M D E 3 2 Y A 0I 3 B 1 D ( s 3 A L DRR R L E 1 1 C EOOTT STO E D D I SF F AA T AF 1 1 T RU L - 4 E U - G R P NE S P N O A ER E A O H C GA R C L S W W = ? \\' \\ l
J 7,f '> .$ l ?*. d e. ~ l e 1 l STEAM GENERATOR i low-Low antER LEVEL (NOTE 5) k e ~illi-E- M T T o--* o--* e--* o--* 1 - = I e L)k W .Lu. W M = ones l te if START START TURBINE-DRIVEN MOTOR-DRIVEN PUMP PUMPS l i
.-----..--.a.-a_.------
N I E D L N B U A O TP B E C IC C R N A S E T N O I E S N E I G T N M G E D A I R N D S I U E U A E D Q Y AS L E L G E A R A O R U L C V G T O N N P I D I E E TD O T C IdE S H O N X U E N F T O E F C D M S GE ) T A 5 SNT 5 N E I T 2 DIEB 2 E T 3 E B H 3 I M I E S S C Y O NS 1 1 1 1 XLR AI ETP R A F P N P TI A RE T A R O C OR O C /E W ( RN W T I U S R T S Y A T CIS T T C A E N H E R E SY HL E N M RA TB D A I O A S EL S T T CI E M E E I D E P CA M D RT DE A U A E UC - UL M F L WE M L C A C D L I CA O V U N R BT N E Y O A A OE T F T S C H SO C R I S A R F' R WJ E R EF U EDS E S VA E NAU S E ET S S SS F FY F F L A A A T TN S SA +
T E N N E M R D OF N E Y M G A OL E O S D N E O H C E I T L D E IV M H O T I R R N W P. O O S L S I Y L T A I Y L W A A E E L T D0 D D N N 9 A E E E M 0 M I 5 D M T E T I R C E LL N HS F L TE A C E I P T R W SY S 0 E L M I E GE N N 1 F NSA I O R I S A Y T S Y L I E E L C R T A N B DAIN F TA i L L I NU L A A C. E US I UG P LR W T N S OU PI VP 5 ED - 2 bNT SS 3 NU N ET OO A 1 ES 1 CB P L SE NU P E Q A CE C ILR W f[
F O N O I S O T Y T R M A L G O O E O P R D W F R E O S E M H J N I T A O T S MS I NK O T T DN A E E VI OC T O S M E SL N S D D NR O A N O E TI S P N I T SN E M M 'O TN E G AI C GI O A Y I R G S W C L F E NE N I E U D CW S E ES O E O T N P P Y N I PE E V AC T S BA E CI A R L L LA O DP W R E R R T F C O N C CL R F E NS UA I I C HE D C E C Y N CG ETI N R E R O EN RN G A C TA E S H RD N F S L DC EI E L E H R O I SD T C W W ON R O E F E N S PA U I F N VS W O E R S E O E E I PE BT I RS V Y E M A WI YT F L R T AN F A E AN C VE M E I A I E S M T F S I 5 RN WU D C2 O EC D N E3 L I E LP V O T A P 1 I S ED E S1 WE R L N R IT G T P I N P F F M F MS A A W F B C A A OE L T E T U CD PW SN SS = +
H C I H W F ) F 0 A S T 9 M S. 0 E ~ 5 T O S T R Y i F S S C '~ E N G 0 O N 1 TI A (.Y H
- G T
C C SO E T E L O O UO S R N Q D S P E O N P E RH I V T O R R L TE I T O. O S T V NM E ' D C N U E A I M/ L N E D N YR D NIS C A T N E S L LO A MY I N P I T ~ O N Y A L B A AS R S U L EN C I E AN SA AG T O E VN NI N? T 5 C AE UI E L L S C 2 U O 3 D T L OO IL E NA VP 1 R A H A 1 I L C E R V. P L P I E' E. R O L A N A C W S -.S O S A S T I W A E N N T S E R OE A E Y R I T A C T M N C C E N AE E N L E D I D L R M E L I R AU E E L E T Q F P M S E E I N R l R T I M L + .~ I r I
. to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 123, Topical Report WCAP-11342, Modification of the Steam Generator Low-Low Level Trip Setpoint to Reduce Feedwater Related Trips Topic l Proposed conceptual modification to the steam generator low-low level trip setpoint. A. Thadani and F. Burrows, NRR, presented for review by the Committee a concept for voluntary modification to the steam generator low-low level trip setpoint. The proposed concept is based on the staff's review of a Westinghouse Topical Report, " Modification of the Steam Generator Low-Low Level Trip Setpoint To Reduce Feedwater Related Trips" - WCAP-11342. The proposed conceptual design change would distinguish between adverse and normal containment environmental conditions. Present practice requires that the instrument uncertainty cal-culated for an environment resulting from a high energy line break be included in determining the steam generator low-low trip setpoint for normal environ-mental containment conditions. Copies of the briefing slides used by the staff j to guide the presentation and discussions at this meeting are attached to this enclosure, f The package submitted for review by CRGR in this matter was transmitted by l memorandum dated September 16, 1987, Thomas E. Murley to Edward L. Jordan; ) the package included the following review documents as attached: 1 : Draft Letter to Roger A. Newton, Chairman of the Westinghouse Owners Group, Regarding Acceptance of Topical Report WCAP-11342. : NRC Staff Evaluation of Topical Report WCAP-11342. ' : Response to Requirement for Content of Package Submitted for CRGR Review. i Discussion l The major comments and questions raised by CRGR at this meeting regarding l the proposed conceptual modification to the steam generator low-low level j trip setpoint were as follows: 1. The principal concern of the Committee was related to added complexity to instrumentation versus the gains to be had in scram reduction. The Committee questioned the staff on the requirement for the harsh envi-ronment allowance. The staff indicated that the bases of the harsh environmental allowance was to be found in Chapter 15 of the SRP. The staff agreed to review the applicability of the harsh environmental requirement. The staff also committed to try and determine what type l of events would lead to a harsh environment and precede a feedwater { system initiated trip. I
. g. q -Recommendation to the EDO j i On the basis of their review of this matter, including'the' discussions with d the staff at this meeting, CRGR recommended the acceptance of the Topical' 'l Report WCAP-11342. 'I 1 l 1 i i l .,j l .] l l. i l -{ 1 1 I .j ih ' j
E S V C E I L S W W O O L R R W U O B L R - F OS T P AI RR E T 7 N 8 E DE G T G 9 A ML N 1 AE ER I T T S R E E 1 E T E 2 TW HA M F D E R O E F R E N OE G B l C T AU R O CD IF E C T I R D C O O O MT T ,N 2I 4O 3P T 1 E 1 - S P P A I CR WT C I P O T !!p
N O IT N A .O U L ITA A C VE I F L I D A O C A M I D N N N H E G G C E N I A S T O E I D D F T N O A W U D T E O E Y N I R S R E V E G O A M R K P M E L C O M C P A R U R M B P S N l l
4 4 1 .l FIGURE 4.4A AUTOMATIC TRIPS VS. SYSTEM BY MAJOR ROOT CAUSE CATEGORIES ALL PLANTS soo moor cAuse i . TOTAL TRIPS : 12N' MUMAN rtRCENT COMPLETE : 955 p M QTucR l l.. I = see. - ) nu nu i l l-m t see< "I 31 9m e W T E RXP STEAM NUP COND RCS CROOTHER SYSTEM i
seenovem f/ h / ,1 ~ b } S s Suse me ame.w r.! h ) ,q ,( :.
- v J
f HI-HI LEVEL i,minauw M { ll g/* \\gg n 8'" (78%) w \\ L [ NARROW y RANGE N , Ti, i [.] L' r a mm ~ a -t-- 1 T1 nui I~~' LO-LO LEVEL l i (17%) ww. I 1 I i3 C ) i - h teous Uhtas l m,, / l amtnos i a I i 'l l s a ..i l'. n: I ! h. l a ,..i n -a f * 'a*== tesemgenauentumuske \\;;.M // ,s MMM gg l m a. m Pitmeraankslemush Nhtnery tesmeer m 2,
3 H A-C 2 TA 2 eo. 2 M S I M 1 G M- . 2 .[ .2 F N 0 F /. ITL F 2c. 9 i AA S 1 TN 8 I a= G 1 I L NI 7 E V E S I 1 L 6 G. A_ 1 SM S .5 VE O L P 1 T I O R L T ' .4 SS 1 E APY .3 N I S B 1 I 6 R R U 4T n0 2 T N '1 .;.1 ECO r 1 I I RTT 2O. 0 1 UAC GME 9 9 O T 7 % I 2 5 8 ".8 F O 1 9 3 T U R M].7 S E E AP P T L I E P 2 O.6 R L M FR T P A o M S L O 3-5 OO A C T T N T O T 'A 2 O. 4 RC T N L E P C A.3 EA RE BE P M R g-2 4 U ,. 1 N o o o o o o a o o o s 4 s m i [$ ob< O 3m23 l
j (WEST!IISHOUSE Mt0PRIETARY CLASS 3). j Safety Analysis Limit }>ProcessMeasurementAccuracy l 1 ~ }frimary Element Accuracy i f > Sensor Temperature Ef f ects b i 'I l j> Sensor Pressure Ef f acts I i i 1,SensorCalibrationAccuracy J ~ h i l q$enser Srif t )>EnvironmentalAllewance i i 4ack Temperature Effects i I STS Allowable Value )eack Comparator Setting Accuracy b Rack Calibration Accuracy Gack Orift [ STS Trip Setpoint Figure 4-2 Westinghouse STS Setpoint Error Breakdown Auene10/osons4' 4-11
R E T E N G I R G U I O O S R L P E T S 1 E O S R E L P R R N U T I E S H N SS G E ER I M RO H N I PR N T T E I A R D N N S O E L R C MA E N T G S I N G E AE I T M R T N T A N L O E C O H R RI C E V I H Y HN W L T E E V I T H Y T C R S A E T V L R I R EA U E S H C R S N O F I C TO O F C DN O E O H Z I C I S N I L U G H TL S I I E W UC T E R S N N D N Y U YI I T I G A G O L A R T O R O P A O T U N L L E F E T O O P O S P D S C D M O E OEL E 2 HT HUE C 4 T T L V N 3 E O E AE O MT MVL C 1 1 P A C W
N I E O L P B T P A E I T S H P E. S E N l N C I B O C A I D A S E P A T T T S D L I N E E E U C L R 2 N N M C C G E A N E O I RI R S I S I E U E I U T D S A QB Y E S m L G E U A RO O R N T L U T L G PI T O O A ND D /P P I E a. V E T O T S R E C IX U T RS N I H E E N O E Q E O U F C EI M T E r ) RT AR F 2 S A 2 RU A 4 DTR 4 ES T 3 EOE 3 PS E N P M E S 1 1 1 C O E R 1 1 XR TP F P O L E A P R T T O A R M A 4 R C NN C O c W E R EE O W ( MM a Y A. N L T NN n T S R A T I I A AA A H E T G H T T N T E N T NN EI e M M OO S MR S M E E N U E CC z D RO D D U EE U VV U AR Y S L WIVL C T I L I T C DNL AA m e N RE A N VV r O A C O RR C HHF C EE I e S I SS e R WR C R NN r E E OO E EA P S CC S NH S F r r F F F w A A T T S S +
9 0 R 5 E R H F G C H I 0 E U E 1 H L T O A T V N I T N R A E R G U E E G S I G R D R G I T I U V R P O N T R C S P I O T F I O S L I T T E L C U I E A Y W P T RQ S TE D N l R U N T E CT A N M RN A E C E D L I E P M C L LD N T L N P E C A E T R E M S M L E E N A F N I 4 S I E G E R ISO YE L I S E ET RN B D AE Y T C L L G N I L AO L L WI UL U TO H PD O T 2 E O VI W 4 C H S 3 NT ET OE 1 E N 1 CM SIO N P P E T A ICE C L, S W + + 1
O N O O I T T R M G O O O P R F L W R A O S W C E E I H J N A N N T O H MS I C O T T N A DN I O E T E E V T N SM E SS D O S D D NT E I S A N ON R T P N I O IU EG I S N E T O M M AP OA CT Q GI Y I S C L F E E G E W NE N I S R U D C S E ES O E W R T T T N P E N YN I PE E V AC T O E BA S N P L CI A M DP E L L P W R A D P C N UI E R R T C O N I A SU CL I R F E N Q U A I L E D C C H E S L ET C Y N C E I RN N WW R O E L E R A C T B E E G S A 2N RD N F S L D T 4 EI E L E S 3R H R O I SI O T C W O 1 E O B R F F W 1 N S E U P E IVS W O R P S F N R E E U A O E E I P S C G E I BT RS V Y E S W N A WE A YT FL R F A I R F H AN E AN C VP O C M E T A I E M S I 2 RT L N WU F D C4 N AO EC N E 3 L E VI D T V O I L O A ED E A P 1 I M T WN RC E S P I R 1 F T L N I PI I A PG T F F M P T AC F I N F MS A A A N OE L C A EE B T O R P TU CD P W SC PS SS + + = lt I
SP I R H T C I D H E WTN N F ) I N F 0 O A A P P S T 9 L T M S 0 E T O N E 5S U S T RF E Y F O C S S C R I A ( TI U E N D N G 0 O E O N 1 T H C TE L C C L E S L N R N Q S WI T E E O US O E R N P E O O O I V RF I T R L S A O O T ~Y N R T V U E G E C N L P A I MOL C O E D YR D O N N L TI N D E A LO A O M O M I T A H B Y T C R AS RS E O I E AN L ES M N AG T O N VN NI G A E UI E 2 T C 4 N L L S IL 3 I T L OO R NA VP 1 U A H A 1 P C E R VI D L R O P N E E A N A T C S ? S O I S A S T I W O A E NN T P E R OE A E T R i T E C TM N C S C E N AE E N R I D L R M E L I R E AU E E L W T Q F S P E E O N M L I R I R + + = ~
i .c I to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 123 Approval of Amendment 19 to General Electric Licensing i Topical Report NEDE-24011-A-P j " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel" i Topic l CRGR was requested to review and endorse approval of Amendment.19 to General' H Electric Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel." This approval would allow (licensees to submit proposed licensing action to eliminate required technical specification surveillance of the linear heat generation rate'-(LHGR) as the method used to verify compliance with the fuel mechanical design thermal limit. ' Surveillance for this parameter would be accomplished by monitoring the Maximum Average - Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR)' currently monitored to ensure - compliance with ECCS limits. The allowable MAPLHGR limits in technical specifications currently include the more limiting of either the ECCS allowable heat generation rate or the fuel mechanical design heat generation limit, LHGR. Thus, this parameter would be adequate to monitor fuel mechanical design limit and allowable ECCS limits. D. Fieno of NRR presented the staff's proposal for - J CER consideration at this meeting. Copies of the briefing slides used to guide their presentation and discussion of this matter with the Committee. are attached to this Enclosure.
Background
The package submitted for review by CRGR was transmitted by memorandum dated September 25, 1987, from T. E. Murley to E. L. Jordan. That package contained-the following documents: 3 1. Draft letter from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to' G. G. Shemood (GE) transmitting NRC staff acceptance for referencing of Amendment 19 to General Electric Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A(GESTAR-11), " General Electric Standard Application for Reload Fuel," April'17,1987. 2. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to Amendment 19 to General Electric Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A(GESTAR), " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel."" I j 3. " Response to Requirements for Content of Package Submitted for CRGR Review" l l 4. SIMS input information for proposed action. Conclusion and Recommendation i On the basis 'of their review of this matter, including' discussion with the l staff at this meeting, the Committee, recommended that the proposal be i endorsed by the EDO. \\ L i
l -t 1 CRGR MEETING i u i OCTOBER 21, 1987-g i j TOPIC: AMENDMENT 17 TO GE-TOPICAL REPORT NEDE-24011, GESTAR 11 g 4 1 I " MODIFICATION TO THE-REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL R0D DROP 1 l ACCIDENT MITIGATING SYSTEMS" l l l l 1 l l l l ) H. RICHINGS. SRXB i \\ l _S__ __$_
- "I______m_______
________m_. ____.___m - _.. _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _i______..m._ ___ _-_-__ _ i - ._J I
y. .s n' s (. I INTRODUCTION f i SUBJECT o BWR CONTROL R0D PATTERN ENFORCEMENTiFORl MITIGATION ~0F RDA-(A LOW POWER EVENT) H INITIATIVE o BWROG - GE-REQUEST 1. JUSTIFYING TOPICAL REPORT. 2. PROPOSED. CHANGES--T0 TS AND GESTAR 11 1 o FINAL ACTION VOLUNTARY BY INDIVIDUAL R 1 PLANTS-PROPOSAL o REDUCTION OF REQUIREMENTS 1. ELIMINATE TS REQUIREMENT FOR OPERATIONAL RSCS (6 23 BWR A & Ss). y 2, LOWER RDA R0D PATTERN CONTROL'(E.G., ~ RWM) TURN 0FFiFROM 20:TO_10% POWER (POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO ALL BWR 2; ~~a--...--. THRU 6) y~~ a h ' ~ " ' ~ ' IMPLEMENTATION O PRIMARILY PROCEDURAL-o NO REQUIRED PHYSICAL CHANGE o CHANGES TO-TS'AND GESTAR 11 1 NRC ROLE o HAVE REVIEWED BWROG PROPOSAL o ACCEPTABLE'WITH ADDITIONAL TS CHANGES o FUTURE: REVIEW INDIVIDUAL PLANI TS AND-( PROCEDURES' i l CL______________.__________________._____ ___i.__i1..______.______________.
,..p. HISTORY (: PROBLEMS o GE RDA ANALYSIS METHODS; BNL REVIEW. (71-72) o REANALYSIS; GE AND ENL o REDUCED MARGIN o RWM PROBLEMS-NRC o RSCS; NEW PLANTS REQUIREMENTS o 20% POWER TURN 0FF (RSCS AND RWM) l (72 - 73) SUBSE0 VENT o NRC PROBABILITY STUDY (FOR.BACKFl.T) ACTIVITIES o BNL METHODOLOGY IMPROVEMENT; l ( (73 - 75 AND 2-3D AND THERMAL FEEDBACK TO PRECENT) o RWN; TS AND COMPUTER ACCEPTANCE o BPWS l CURRENT o PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF 72 RESOLVED SITUATION 1. RDA ANALYSES; LOWER H FOR GIVEN A K 1 l 2. BPWS; LOWER o K 3. PROBABILITY ANALYSIS A. UNLIKELY TO EXCEED LIMITS s. LOWER WITH IMPROVEMENTS c. LOWER WITH EXPANDED DATA 4. RWM; IMPROVED CONFIDENCE ( o OPERATION DELAYS WITH GNRSCS 1 1 m ._. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i
SUMMARY
'0F EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS c BWROG PRESENTATION BASED: PRIMARILY ON NRC WORK ON METHODOLOGY AND PROBABILITY ' STUDIES RWM OPERABILITY IMPROVEMENT IMPROVED R0D PATTERNS (BPWS) s w t s' nnw-y I EVALUATION AGREES PERCEIVED PROBLEMS'0F 72 RESOLVED-o 1 LOWER R0D WORTH LOWER PEAK ENTHALPY FOR GIVEN R0D WORTH IMPROVED CONFIDENCE FOR RWM LOW PROBABILITY OF 75. EVEN LOWER N0W. i c OPERATION DELAYS WITH GNRSCS REASONABLE INCENTIVE o COST MINIMAL RISK INCREASE MINIMAL BENEFIT FROM DECREASED LOW POWER OPERATING AND SHUTDOWN TIME o CONCLUDE THAT RSCS CAN BE IN0PERABLE AND THAT RWM CAN BE OFF ABOVE 10% POWER
IMPLEMENTATION c CHANGES TO GESTAR 11 FOR PLANTS WANTING TO IMPLEMENT CHANGE: O CHANGE INDIVIDUAL PLANT TS 1. ALLOW RSCS OFF, AND RWM OFF ABOVE 10% POWER 1 1 2. CHANGE RWM TS TO REQUIRE OPERATION SIMILAR TO BWR3 TS-0 REVIEW SECOND OPERATOR PROCEDURES AND QC AND REPORT TO NRC 1 1 e NRC REVIEWS TS AND PROCEDURES (ABOUT 1 MAN DAY PER PLANT) l l ' -. --
Enclosure S to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.123 Approval of the BWROG Proposal for 4 " Modification of the Requirements for Control Rod Drop Accident Mitigating Systems" Topic CRGR was requested to review and endorse approval of the BWR Owners 3 Group Proposal for " Modification to the Requirements for Control Rod Drop Accident Mitigating Systems" for referencing in licensee's applications. Approval of this topical report would allow licensees to submit proposed licensing action which would (1) remove the rod sequence control system (RSCS) from operation at their facilities and (2) allow the power level below which RSCS and the rod worth minimizer (RWM) would be required to be reduced to 10% from the current 20L H. Richings of NRR presented the staff's proposal for CRGR consideration at this meeting. Copies of the briefing slides used to guide their presentation and discussion of this matter with the Committee are I attached to this Enclosure. 1 l
Background
The package submitted for review by CRGR was transmitted by memorandum dated I September 25, 1987, from T. E. Murley to E. L. Jordan. That package contained i the following documents: 1. Draft letter from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to T. A. Pickens (BWR Owners Group) transmitting NRC staff acceptance for referencing of Revision 8, Amendment 17 of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard 1 Application for Reload Fuel." l 2. Draft letter from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to J. S. Charnley (GE) transmitting l NRC staff acceptance for referencing of Revision 8, Amendment 17 of i Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reload Fuel." 3. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to Amendment 17 General Electric Topical Report NEDE-24011-P, General i Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel." 4. " Response to Requirements for Content of Package Submitted for CRGR Review" l S. SIMS input information for proposed action. Conclusion and Recommendations On the basis of their review of this matter, including discussion with the staff at this meeting, the Committee, recommended that the proposal be endorsed by the EDO. Also, the Committee recommended that the staff provide a presentation to the ED0 on this issue. l
CRGR MEETING ) OCTOBER 21, 1987-l l 4 TOPIC: AMENDMENT 19.(PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS j FOR POWER DISTRIBUTION LIMITS) TO NEDE-24011-P-A (GESTAR-ll), " GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD APPLICATION FOR REACTOR FUEL" I . DANIEL FIEN0 SRXB 1
BWR THERMAL LIMITS PURPOSE: PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT-(1) FUEL MECHANICAL DESIGN ANALYSIS LIMITS, (2) LOCA ANALYSIS LIMITS, AND (3) THERMAL-HYDRAULIC LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: (1) FUEL MECHANICAL DESIGN ANALYSIS LIMIT - LINEAR HEAT GENERATION RATE (LHGR) T5, y ,(2) LOCA ANALYSIS LIMIT - MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATION RATE (MAPLHGR) 1 (3) THERMAL-HYDRAULIC LIMIT - MINIMUM CRITICAL j POWER' RATIO (MCPR) n a., PROPOSED CHANGES: (1) DELETE REDUNDANT LHGR LIMIT i (2) FOR FUEL WITH AXIALLY DEPENDENT Mgs, PROVIDL_0NLY THE MOST LIMITING AND LEAST LIMITING MAPLHGRs FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPLICABILITY: ALL BWRs WITH GE FUEL
o.. -
SUMMARY
OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION (A) DELETE LHGR LIMIT MAPLHGR BASED ON MOST LIMITING 0F FUEL MECHANICAL DESIGN ANALYSIS AND LOCA ANALYSIS LIMITS AS A FUNCTION OF FUEL BURNUP FOR A GIVEN FUEL BUNDLE i THUS, LHGR AND MAPLHGR ARE FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT: MAPLHGRLIMIT 'LPF LHGR = LHGRfbrLHGRLIMIT .i LOCAL (WITHIN A BUNDLE) PEAKING FACTOR LPF = 1 LHGR BASED ON AN LPF AT AN ALL RODS OUT, (PROPRIETARY) l VOID CONDITION PROVIDES HIGH PROBABILITY AND CONFIDENCE THAT LHGR WILL NOT BE EXCEEDED a l CONSERVATISM BUILT INTO FUEL THERMAL MECHANICAL DESIGN ANALYSIS I
SUMMARY
OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION CONTINUED TPF (TOTAL. PEAKING FACTOR) ALSO DELETED SINCE IT IS RELATED.TO LHGRs SETDOWN FACTOR T RECOMPUTED USING MAPLHGR (USED IN APRM FLOW BIASED ROD-BLOCK AND SCRAM FUNCTIONS) SETDOWN FACTOR SHOWN TO BE' EQUAL OR CONSERVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO PREVIOUS COMPUTATION ALL AFFECTED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ADDRESSED ON CHANGES AND WORDING 4 PROCESS COMPUTER MONITORING OF LHGR WILL CONTINUE AS. BEFORE a ' STAFF. POSITION PROVIDES FOR DOCUMENTATION'0F.LHGR, LPF, AND MAPLHGR j 1 J' .--___-___--a
SUMMARY
OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION CONTINUED (B) AXIALLY DEPENDENT MAPLHGRs AXIALLY DEPENDENT MAPLHGRs WOULD RESULT IN NUMEROUS CURVES RESULTING IN CUMBERSOME TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ALL CURVES WILL BE AVAILABLE TO NRC AND OPERATOR FOR EACH AXIAL SEGMENT, PROCESS COMPUTER WILL MONITOR TO CORRECT MAPLHGR VALUES WHEN PROCESS COMPUTER IS IN0PERABLE, HAND CALCULATION WILL USE MOST LIMITING MAPLHGR OF A FUEL BUNDLE SPREAD OF MAPLHGR VALUES BETWEEN MOST LIMITING AND LEAST LIMITING VALUES IS SMALL
9,,..' COST / BENEFIT I 1 o RESOURCE IMPACT- { 'l l UTILITY RESPONSE IS VOLUNTARY l STAFF EFFORT l-1 MAN-WEEK PER APPLICATION l 1 o ANTICIPATED BENEFITS 4 l I l l l l ) NO CHANGE IN LEVEL OF MONITORING OF BWR CORE 1 THERMAL LIMITS 'l l l LESS CUPSERSOME'IECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS -l l ~ ~~ ~"~~ ~ ~~ 1 -- ---- ---.-------- --- -- -l T lT-J 1_
y z y.. } -l i 1
- ;l 1
1
SUMMARY
- 1
-i 'l SAFETY IMPACT NEGLIGIBLE 4 1 1
- ' COST / BENEFIT FAVORABLE 1
==.> APPROVAL RECOMENDED l 1 l 1 l l' 4 i 1 l.
4. ' o: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION o NUREG-1024 " TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - ENHANCING.THE SAFETY IMPACT," NOVEMBER 1983 o SECY 86-10 " RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING TECHNICAL l SPECIFICATIONS" l c "NRC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PLAN," REV. 1, MAY 1986 (PREPARED BY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS C0 ORDINATION j BRANCH, DHFT, NRR) 1 _-mm__mm.____}}