NSD-NRC-97-5030, Submits Revised Response & Markup of LCOs 3.0.2 & 3.0.3 & Bases for NRC Review.Rev Deletes Exemption for Entry Into LCO 3.0.3

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Revised Response & Markup of LCOs 3.0.2 & 3.0.3 & Bases for NRC Review.Rev Deletes Exemption for Entry Into LCO 3.0.3
ML20137C672
Person / Time
Site: 05200003
Issue date: 03/19/1997
From: Mcintyre B
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To: Quay T
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20137C676 List:
References
NSD-NRC-97-5030, NUDOCS 9703250081
Download: ML20137C672 (5)


Text

'

. W

  • i I

e Westinghouse Energy Systems Box 355 Pittsbu@ Pennsylvania 15230 0355 Electric Corporation NSD-NRC-97-5030 DCP/NRC0777 Docket No.: STN-52-003 March 19,1997 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, DC 20555 TO: T. R. Quay

SUBJECT:

Revision to Response to NRC Question on AP600 Technical Specification LCO 3.0.3

Reference:

NSD-NRC-97-4984 (DCP/NRC0739), Response to NRC Question on AP600 Technical Specifications LCO 3.0.3, dated 2/13/1997.  !

l

Dear Mr. Quay:

The referenced letter provided a response to an NRC question regarding LCO 3.0.3, Key Licensing l Issue number 19 (OITS item 4182). As we discussed yesterday, that response has been revised to  !

delete the exemption for entry into LCO 3.0.3. That revised response and a markup of LCOs 3.0.2 I and 3.0.3 and their bases is attached for your review. In addition, the times for reaching Modes 4 and 5 reflect AP600 capabilities for reaching Mode 4 on safety systems and for reaching an endstate of Mode 5, rather than specifying Mode 4 as the safe endstate.

This approach meets the direction provided by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at a senior management meeting last year. The staff should review this LCO and provide any comments to Westinghouse by April 2,1997 so that we can meet the SECY-97-051 schedule.  !

If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the AP600 Technical Specifications, ]

please contact Robin K. Nydes at (412) 374-4125. i N

Brian A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing i

/jwh .

Attachments e 0013

~

cc: T. Martin - NRC/NRR/DRPM (w/o attachments) -

Bill Huffman, NRC (w/ attachments)

Chris Grimes, NRC (w/ attachments)

N. Liparuto - W (w/o attachments) 9703250081 970319 PDR ADOCK 05200003t  %,E%%* EE%'IE*' '

A PDR L

- . -- . - - _ - - . .- . - - ~ . _ - - . - . - - --

e t

AP600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

. - WESTINGHOUSE RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS  !

l

1) Safe Shutdown End State, LCO 3.0 3:

LCO 3.0.3 specifies that when an LCO is not met and the associated Actions are not met, the plant '

i shall be placed in MODE 5 within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. However, both LCOs 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 add a statement that "when plant conditions or configuration prevent the unit from being brought to the required MODE i within the time limits specified using nonnal plant procedures. expedited actions shall be taken to  !

establish and maintain the required plant conditions..

  • LCO 3.0.2 funher states that " entry into LCO i 3.0.3 is not reauired in this situation" (Underline added). This essentially amounts to a waiver for '

[

LCO 3.0.3 when the mode reduction cannot be accomplished within the required completion time as long at " expedited actions" are taken.

The situation arises because the MODE reduction completion times specified in LCO 3.0.3, when an LCO is not met, are based on the availability of non-safety, active systems, such as stanup feedwater system (SFW) and normal residual heat removal system (RNS), if these active systems are not i available, the AP600 passive systems alone cannot achieve MODE reduction within the specified times.

I Therefore, if the active heat removal systems needed for cool-down are not available, LCO 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 would not only permit longer MODE reduction times. but also exempt the MODE reduction  !

requirement altogether as long as expedited actions are taken to accomplish unit shutdown as soon as practical. There are no funher specifications regarding the " expedited actions" as well as the extended .

completion time.

While the SFW and RNS are necessary systems for MODE reduction within the specified completion  !

times, they are not included in the TS because, Westinghouse contends, they do not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the TS. Therefore, there is no TS requirement to control the reliability and availability of an imponant non-safety active system that is needed to completc *.he MODE reduction mission; and, when an LCO is not met, the compliance for LCO 3.0.3 MODE reduction is waived  ?

when this active system is unavailable. Without any control over the reliability / availability of the  !

imponant RNS, there will be no control to minimize the exemption of MODE reduction requirement  !

when an LCO is not met, and LCO 3.0.3 becomes meaningless because it is exempt when the RNS is ,

unavailable. .

Therefore, the proposed LCOs 3.0.2 and 3.0.3, as well as their BASES, are not acceptable. The TS ,

should be revised by either deleting the statement of compliance exemption (due to nonsafety system unavailability) from LCOs 3.0.2 and 3.0.3, or adding the reliability / availability requirements of l

imponant nonsafety systems that are needed for completion of MODE reduction within the specified i times. In SECY-94-084, item A Regulatory Treatment of Non-safety Systems, the Commission I

indicated its acceptance of

  • simple technical specifications" as an availability control mechanism for the imponant non-safety systems. If Westinghouse proposes to include in LCOs 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 the statement allowing compliance exemption, it should also propose a proper TS LCO to assure availability of those active systems which are relied upon to complete the mode reduction requirements.

f l

i Page 1 March 19,1997 i

e AP600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I WESTINGHOUSE RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS l l W Response (Revision 1 based on informal NRC feedback on previous Response):

The AP600 Technical Specification LCO 3.0.3 was originally written in 1992 to be consistent with the I capabilities of the passive systems to place the plant to a safe shut down condition. The LCO 3.0.3 Completion Times were longer than for operating plants and the final shut down mode was MODE 4, l

consistent with the capabilities of the passive systems, in conjunction with this approach, MODE 4  !

was defined as 200 to 420*F rather than the standard 200 to 350'F, since passive systems can not cool 1 the plant down to much less than 400'F in : rr^rSS ;:ded ? "= less than 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />. The use of nonsafety-related systems was not discussed in LCO 3.0.3. It was expected that the plant would use l

the systems normally used to perform plant shutdowns, including main feedwater, offsite power, etc.

I in the May 1996 Senior Management Meeting, the NRC provided guidance that shutdown to only MODE 4 in LCO 3.0.3 was unacceptable and that if shutdown to MODE 5 were specified assuming the availability of nonsafety related systems, that Technical Specification requirements on the nonsafety-related systems would not be necessary. Based on the NRC guidance, LCO 3.0.3 was revised (SSAR Rev. 9) , including shutdown to MODE 5 rd d^-':r c^qb:!= "c :. Additionally, LCO 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 were revised to clearly state that the nonsafety-related shutdown systems were not governed by Technical Specifications so that no violations would apply if non-technical specification shutdown systems were unavailable.

The importance of AP600 nonsafety-related systems has been systematically evaluated and an appropriate level of reliability and availability requirements has been identified. These evaluations include the RTNSS evaluation, Technical Specification selection evaluation and the Reliability Assurance Program (RAP).

The RTNSS cvaluation (WCAP-13856) did not capture SFW and only captured RNS because it is an important factor in the initiating event frequency of loss of normal cooling during cold shutdown operation with reduced inventory. The RNS was not RTNSS imponant during other modes of plant operation. WCAP-13856 contains recommendations to the COL applicant for the development of plant operating procedures that will provide short term availability control of the RNS and its necessary support systems during its RTNSS important mission (cold shutdown with reduced inventory).

The Technical Specification selection criteria in 10CFR50.36 was applied to AP600. The selection j criteria did not capture the SFW, the RNS or any other nonsafety-related systems. It should be noted that operating plants which have implemented NUREG-1431 have eliminated LCOs from the Standard Technical Specifications using the 10CFR50.36 selection criteria; many of these eliminated LCO's are similar in safety importance to the LCO's suggested by the NRC for the RNS and SFW. LCO's that were eliminated from the Technical Specifications were relocated in other procedures or programs such as the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). These programs provide an appropriate level of j regulatory oversight / availability control for these less important features, i The AP600 RAP (SSAR table 16.2-1) provides for long term reliability of AP600 features. This table includes both safety-related and nonsafety-related defense-in-depth features, such as the SFW and the RNS.

I j The AP600 LCO 3.0.3 approach is based on specifying the safest course of action, considering potential plant conditions. If nonsafety-related systems used to cool the plant to MODE 5 conditions are unavailable when the plant enters LCO 3.0.3, the operators will have sufficient time to restore those systems and u!" h= :: place the plant in a safe shutdows condition.

I I

Page 2 March 19,1997

t e  !

I i i

t Al600i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i

e e l

l e

WESTINGHOUSE RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS i F

l

)

TL... .A n. tA. A f (* A 1. .n. 9--A- -_ 1. . A.

e,

. .1 .. , . .- ._. _ -.. . : .- l 1 . e.m e.t. . g- .. . _ A - e. -

p . . . l A A Lj. ,

k.' f,,? D. . C._/,., 1 A.1.,1 j . _.y. _ _--e, . L l , L.

n.. ,.. fl,. Lt. . .L m eL* .-.~ ,

- rr --- - - - - - - - - - -

e,

,,.mlek I,ime ...-3e

--r-----------'-

. , m :1.L. f . Cm ..


r--'

1.

! ,L c, A,..A T _ L-l. 1 c  : f:~e .,. , icTes f fan 17 C .... ___ - - . . , ..- m . :.. ene l r en A Cur .m . --,

l . . _ . . . - - -

r- --"' """ " ' - - --'I------ - '--


p---- - - - - - - - -

r---r-l

-. . . , _._-_, _ - . ene

.. :-m- _ti e n. .. ,_ _,. f. . e--..m.. ----

_e: - ' : ,. -'e. -l m,.

_e.:- _ - - . e L.. 1. , e.  :- e u.. . . . . .e u.n, n C - A_ . , _ . , . . . .i rur

g. . . . . . . ._ .

L' -.g-.__.

a n_ . , ,- . A e..

A _J _J .: e... fli,

.y, e L.. .A..r e. i m .- N .1

. . n.,.s....1.:._s..#.

g . .

i l e h. f ,(,,"A 1. . A. 1.,

m, m e L. .. D .y_.,. .A m..:

A..c e. .: m* ,. . . .. L. . ,.k.

. .. . . . n,._... L A.IT. h. C ,.k. ._u . a ,..

l I- -t,.'/T 1.*f . C (*,s. . A l #.

, _. m..N. -

1

'N l -,

Im,m-.. L1. . LAfihr 1 *f s.

.. f T....

i L.. 1, .A Cu? e.. . _ _ _ _ .

r------ - - - - - i -> - 1-- l l

TT.f

- k.WT. C, Y /,.*/4 1 A. 1-A--n11 m. e.k. , f /*A- D ... .. ,: _.._A

,.L &

- . -. . .. -- .A..n e.. l m ,... . . , . .-.-! ,. L E. A h C

!., .. rem. A e .

_ ,-- A.A . . .m.e

- .. l 1. m.. m .A CH f e..m: .-. . ... .- e..mA,.,.D. C D. . A.-D f C., r e._.__

l l

l f : . . me u r. e

-..m,.. .

em . rem

.. .._ __. n.n. A Cufe..n:- e ,m A

y.

D C D. . A.D- .T.C , e._o s .___. ,

f _ .. . A : m e 1,o *

.CT. .C. - -D .&. C C C 1.- . *F . .C.,.. f mm me : m. .

..r- - - - -

n . .:- m- .all . Im LAANC 1 9 1 e k. . . - l e I, I ,.lm .,1 o j f .f .at.t.gf e..L.. j.1 .A Cuf e,  !=., m. a

.r----' - - " - ' "8 "- " ' - - - - - - ' - "

"-----J '

1: e A A. ,,. . . J . A e m . . A : l m - - ! L .m.m . _ _ f.* .,.fmeA (m. .om.J..a. a u, n A  !

_..j - _ . . ._ _ . .,- - e.s . T A m

.. __. -- m.a.l.j. , ..-

(m. -m m , f e . . 1. . A

- -.. nn A...se

.,. - . n,

.,__g.__-..

.m..

f....nLm,.J:.lm,

... . . - __ . . .. . m f A mu..m . . . L.

. ___..j _ _ _ . . __. - . . _ _ . . .. . e.L

..e,. . . ,L. m .fA - .., . . f o

_ _ _ _ .. m.e.L.. g . . .L A k.j, . -.j ane:m . . :_.o.t _ ._. A - : _ , .n. g,.. .. .. .. .. . n L a m _ gm . , o k..me. ..l ,. L e . . . . l..

ane: L A I--->J: e.1.,em m e , ..

e. M.g.. *f%... - . . .

e .M m . m. ..

.m.f e L. , nam A :n- . _ _ . . .m-

......m.

3__.- e. L. _m e.

. -..m... .,.e.-.mn.- .

___.__j - . . .

. e .m A DCD. . A.D I.,C c o._r e._.. ,

mm... .A. ruf e. ._n.'

Dm.. nf ,. . mA : fl. A k.,jm a- A. f. me.. : . A I,. me :m.,o e..L. e.al-.l

,..A-.&.-e..m.

..- . . : ..A 7.... LA. fin C ek ....

m.

..A . n e l m m , ... , , -

_u.. e :1. m m.. .A Cufe..o*. I. ,. . ._ , e. .m- .

- - . . .. J - J A e ,m, A D C D, A. D f _C, r.-...fa ,

e L. I.,.

7.... -_ _ _ _ . . . . - . - - , _ . . .. . . . . w. -- -. e..m e.

1 l o .Lt . .1A (m.n. ek...le Imen a 1.,, ,

  • f. emnd l e m #

es,, f(*/% 1.A. 1 ., - m e.

a-

_.gr-------

L.*o n. . . le n

' - ' - - - - "" - - - " ' " - - --- - " - - - - " - - - ~ "

. . J _ e

,. 61. . . - , m f. 7 . -tm-

, me T. k. .. .A D4A. A. , e _. _e l m... (m.11. m u. .. ,. e..L., l ., C,.T. ,c. f /,.*./\ 1. 7. .C . u PL.... .. -.e.L.. g M....g.. .e.

y- . . . n, . - n . - .

, L m. .f A nme Lree-..J .. L. e L emm1 A mu , . .,,... I,\ ,L-.1A L

r. am1. A_ .. m. -u . - - . . = l 1 L 1.

n..

mmm1 Amu.,. . . _ _ _ . " " - " ----

-r--8 -- - - - - - --- " " - - - '

'"J-'---------"'- i mem..A.

  • ft.

A D. L. A. A.

.J Ale m en

-- -. 1.A. 1. . . .A 1.A.1 ,La.1A f /*/\,

. - . . _ _ . _ L.. ....:..A. . . - . . . . , .

e,  :

...m. ._A (m. .e l .y. e. k..g

. . . . . .. .1. m m.e.

I

.e m. . 1. , _. f e m J : e !. , . . l

]

1 1

t e i i

I I

I Page 3 March II,1997

1 A$600 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WESTINGHOUSE RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

?

1 Conclusions In summary, Westinghouse has attached a~ suggested modification to modified LCO 3.0.3 for NRC review. This' remains -consistent with at the agreement at regr1 ef the NRC h-e Senior Management Meeting 5~ 1 en : 2;;:_: : : that this action would not lead to Technical Specifications on the nonsafety related systems which are needed to achieve MODE 5. but which are not needed to achiese l

the AP600 safe stable long term shutdown condition in MODE 4.

The NRC question recommendations two possible resolutions to their concerns: I

1) to add technical specification requirements for SFW and RNS or i
2) to eliminate the LCO 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 compliance exception 1 Westinghouse concludes that technical specification requirements for SFW and RNS are not necessary in accordance with the 10CFR50.36 criteria as well as past agreements with the NRC. NRC concurs. l Westinghouse agrees to_ ' eliminate the LCO 3.0.2_ and 3.0.3 compliance exception. asshown in the attached mantup. cer!+- $2: h: LCO 3.0.2 r ' d 3.0.3 : mp!: _ r:--:!: s 2: r n-.y ::  ;

p:c"!& fer :chr:n r;u.x: ;;:: : r: : -- : ' h: p:-+-: p: -!&d i- h: STS.

Therefore. LCOs 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 :' !d ri 9 S: pp::rh cur:::!y :prT:-d are mvised as  !

attached. - Longer completion times and deletion of the compliance exceptions in LCO 3.0.2 att based on the understanding that fines are assessed on utilities when the LCO_3.0.3 conditions are not met, not for entering LCO 3.0.3.

1 I

I l

Page 4 March 11,1997