ML20132G660: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 24: Line 24:
==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF MEETING WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPOSED SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) AT THE PEACH BOTTOM FACILITY Introduction On June 14, 1985, the NRC staff met with representatives of Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) in Bethesda, Maryland to further discuss the proposed Peach Bottom Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The list of participants is included as Enclosure 1.
OF MEETING WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPOSED SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) AT THE PEACH BOTTOM FACILITY Introduction On June 14, 1985, the NRC staff met with representatives of Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) in Bethesda, Maryland to further discuss the proposed Peach Bottom Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The list of participants is included as Enclosure 1.
Discussion By letter dated April 3,1985, the NRC staff sent to the licensee a review of the Peach Bottom proposed SPDS based upon the staff's review of the licensee's submittals of September 28, 1983 and July 17, 1984 and an in-plant audit of the Peach Bottom SPDS. The licensee requested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the staff's findings and conclusions as addressed in the April 3,1985 transmittal and a telephone conference call. The NRC staff agreed to this meeting in order to provide the licensee with an opportunity to more fully describe the proposed SPDS and respond to the April 3,1985 transmittal.
Discussion By {{letter dated|date=April 3, 1985|text=letter dated April 3,1985}}, the NRC staff sent to the licensee a review of the Peach Bottom proposed SPDS based upon the staff's review of the licensee's submittals of September 28, 1983 and July 17, 1984 and an in-plant audit of the Peach Bottom SPDS. The licensee requested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the staff's findings and conclusions as addressed in the April 3,1985 transmittal and a telephone conference call. The NRC staff agreed to this meeting in order to provide the licensee with an opportunity to more fully describe the proposed SPDS and respond to the April 3,1985 transmittal.
A summary of licensce's description of its proposed SPDS and responses to the staff's review is attached as Enclosure 2.
A summary of licensce's description of its proposed SPDS and responses to the staff's review is attached as Enclosure 2.
The licensee's proposed SPDS is based upon the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG) in place at Peach Bottom at the time of the design of the SPDS. Integration of all Nureg 0737, Supplement I goals was basis of the proposed SPDS at Peach Bottom. The proposed SPDS under review by the staff would be replaced in 1990 by an updated SPDS in connection with the installation of upgraded process control computer.
The licensee's proposed SPDS is based upon the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG) in place at Peach Bottom at the time of the design of the SPDS. Integration of all Nureg 0737, Supplement I goals was basis of the proposed SPDS at Peach Bottom. The proposed SPDS under review by the staff would be replaced in 1990 by an updated SPDS in connection with the installation of upgraded process control computer.

Latest revision as of 03:59, 10 August 2022

Summary of 850614 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Proposed Spds.Viewgraphs Encl
ML20132G660
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/02/1985
From: Gears G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8507190422
Download: ML20132G660 (21)


Text

,

' e .. g " 2 1985 M SD(

Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-278 LICENSEE: Philadelphia Electric Company FACILITY: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPOSED SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) AT THE PEACH BOTTOM FACILITY Introduction On June 14, 1985, the NRC staff met with representatives of Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) in Bethesda, Maryland to further discuss the proposed Peach Bottom Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The list of participants is included as Enclosure 1.

Discussion By letter dated April 3,1985, the NRC staff sent to the licensee a review of the Peach Bottom proposed SPDS based upon the staff's review of the licensee's submittals of September 28, 1983 and July 17, 1984 and an in-plant audit of the Peach Bottom SPDS. The licensee requested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the staff's findings and conclusions as addressed in the April 3,1985 transmittal and a telephone conference call. The NRC staff agreed to this meeting in order to provide the licensee with an opportunity to more fully describe the proposed SPDS and respond to the April 3,1985 transmittal.

A summary of licensce's description of its proposed SPDS and responses to the staff's review is attached as Enclosure 2.

The licensee's proposed SPDS is based upon the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG) in place at Peach Bottom at the time of the design of the SPDS. Integration of all Nureg 0737, Supplement I goals was basis of the proposed SPDS at Peach Bottom. The proposed SPDS under review by the staff would be replaced in 1990 by an updated SPDS in connection with the installation of upgraded process control computer.

The NRC staff agreed that further review of the Peach Bottom SPDS was warranted based upon the licensee's presentation and the fact that the licensee was in the planning stages to install a new process control ccmputer and associated computer assisted SPDS. The licensee was asked to respond to the the staff's April 3,1985 transmittal as well as include documentation on the status of the new process computer (e.g., time frame, costs, individual SPDS versus integrated SPDS with new process computer etc.).

8507190422 850702 PDR ADOCK 05000277 F PDR-

~

^*

The licensee agreed to submit the above information in support of its proposed SPDS as interim compliance to Nureg-0737, Supplement 1 prior to the installation of a new process control computer and associated SPDS.

%'..wi ;.I:  :.

Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees
2. The Licensee's Sumary cc w/ enclosures:

See next page i

f

MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company

" Copies also sent to those people or service (cc) list for subject plant (s).

kE ket @

fl R C P D R L PDR ORB #4 Rdp Project Manager - G Gears JStolz B Grimes (Emerg. Preparedness only)

OELD EJordan, IE A C R S-10 P Morriette N R C Meetinc

Participants:

L Beltracchi SWeiss 11Regan JMazetis illicC oy 11 Ken nedy

Enclosure 1

(

SPDS MEETING JUN 14, 1985 Name O roa nization Telep hone Gerald Gears Project Manager /N RC/DL 301-492-8362 Wes Bowers Supervising Engr./PEco 215-841-4602 W. T. Ullrich Supervising /Nucl. Generat. Divis. 215-841-5593 L. Beltracchi NRC/DHFS 301-492-4879 S. Weiss NRC/DHFS 301-492-4875 i

l U. Regan N R C/D H FS 301-492-4813 Jerry Mazetis NRC/DHFS 301-497-7254 fiike McCoy NRC/DHFS 301-492-9692 l W. Kennedy NRC/DHFS 301-492-4578 W. Birley PECo-Licensing Engineer 215-P41-5048 l

l l

l l

l l i i

l l

I

F- .

PEACH BOTTOM APS UNITB 2 AND 3 SAFETY PARAMETER D I SPL. AY SYSTEM

f- .

AGENDA LICENSING STATUS DISCUSSION OF EPG IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF PEACH BOTTOM DESIGN DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

-RELIABILITY VS. VALIDATION

-PARAMETER SELECTION

-OPERATOR USE OF SPDS FUTURE ACTION

F -

l I

i 1

l l

LICENSING STATUS I

  • NUREG-0737, SUPPLEMENT 1 I

ISSUED 12/82

  • PECO COMMITMENT 4/B3
  • SAFETY EVALUATION SUBMITTED
  • iP / B 3
  • NRC REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 5/B4 l
  • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BUBMITTED 7/B4
  • NRC SITE AUDIT 1O/B4 1
  • NRC FINDING REPORT 4/B5
  • RESPONSE TO FINDINGS PREPARED BUT NOT ISSUED i

i

NRC FINDINGS

  • MONITOR ADDITIONAL VARIABLES
  • PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE VALIDATION
  • INCORPORATE HUMAN FACTORS PRINCIPLES
  • JUSTIFY ISOLATION BETWEEN CLASS 1E AND NON-CLASS 1E CIRCUITS

F -

REQUIREMENTS IN NUREG-0737

  • SPDS MUST BE PROVIDED ,
  • COMMERCIAL SRADE EQUIPMENT ACCEPTABLE
  • OPERATORS TRAINED TO RESPOND WITH OR WITHOUT SPDS
  • HUMAN FACTORS PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO DISPLAY
  • PROMPT IMPLEMENTATION DESIRED

F .

  • DISPLAYS MUST COVERz

-REACTIVITY CONTROL

-CORE COOLING AND HEAT REMOVAL

-REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM INTEGRITY

-RADIOACTIVITY CONTROL

-CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS

- ~

  • SPECIFIC PARAMETERS SELECTED a

BY LICENSEE

  • ANALYSIS REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY SELECTED PARAMETERS I

SPDS AT PEACH BOTTOM

  • USES STRIP-CHART RECORDERS AND VALVE POSITION LIGHTS AT TWO LOCATIONS
  • HIGHLY RELIABLE INDICATION
  • VARIABLES BELECTED ARE TRIP ENTRY CONDITIONS
  • FULLY OPERATIONAL AFTER REACTOR PRESSURE INDICATION ADDED
  • CRDR TO PROVIDE ENHANCEMENTS

-NEW LABLES

-ZNDICATORS COLOR CODED

-OUT-OF-NORMAL LIMITS COLOR CODED I

  • OPERATORS TRAINED AS PART OF TRIP TRAINING i

l l

FIGURE 1 SPDS ARRANGEMENT ( .og) 1

< 67" #

i A

Wi 5 1~ 2,3,4,5 6 90" l

l l

CORE CORE PCIS SPRMr RHR MSIV ADS CAD CAD RCIC HPCI RHR REAY 1

l r

V Approximate Scale 1" =25" SPDS Indicators

1. Drywell Temperature Recorder (0 to 240 F). l
2. Suppression Pool Level Recorder (1 to 21 feet) .
3. Suppression Pool Temperature Recorder (30 to 230 F).
4. Drywell Pressure Recorder (5 to 25 psia and 0 to 225 psig).
5. Reactor Water Level Recorder (-165 to +50 inches and -325 to 0 inches).
6. Group I Isolation Valve Position Lights (Open/Close).
7. Reactor Pressure (0 to 1500 psig).

i

-. . - . - .- . - . . . _ . - . . . _ - . . = . _ - - _

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

r SPDS Design and Qualification j i

Safety Quality Periodically on-site Sensor Qualification Variable Related Assured Tested Power Seismic Environmental 1

Deactor water level Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reactor pressure '.*e s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Drywell pressure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes .

I Drywell Temperature No No Yes Yes Yes Yes ,

i j

Suppression pool temperature Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  !

i Suppression pool level Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes j Group I isolation valve position Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes l Neutron flux Note 1 Note 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes  !

I l

i i

NOTES l

1. All portions of the loop are safety related and quality assured except for the recorder.

I [

i i

DISCUSSION ITEMS PECO BELIEVES SPDS MEETS NUREG-0737 REQUIREMENTS PECO BELIEVES NRC REVIEW DONE WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL SUBMITTALS

-NEUTRON FLUX MONITORED > +

-HUMAN FACTORS REVIEW INTEGRATED WITH CRDR

-ISOLATION INFORMATION PROVIDED

-PLANT-UNIQUE PROCEDURES USED IT APPEARS THAT GUIDANCE UPGRADED TO REQUIREMENTS

-VALIDATION IT APPEARS THAT NEW

{

REQUIREMENTS WERE IMPOSED

-SHIFT SUPERVISOR IS ONLY USER

-OFFSITE RELEASES MUST BE MONITORED

-SINGLE FAILURE CRITERIA I M P O S E D'.

RELIABILITY OF SPDS

  • NUREG-0737 REQUIRES RELIABLE DISPLAY
  • RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT MET

-SELECTED SAFETY-GRADE CRITERIA

-ALL PARAMETERS VALIDATED ON l

REDUNDANT DISPLAY

-ADDITIONAL VALIDATION POSSIBLE

  • SRP 18.2 SUGGESTS USE OF ON-LINE VALIDATION TO MEET RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT
  • NRC REVIEW

-NO CREDIT FOR " PEDIGREED" INSTRUMENTS

-APPEARS TO ELEVATE VALIDATION GUIDANCE TO A REQUIREMENT

-REDUNDANT DISPLAYS IN ONE FIELD OF VIEW

-APPEARS TO IMPOSE BINGLE FAILURE CRITERIA

SPDS PARAMETER SELECTION

  • BASED ON ENTRY CONDITIONS FOR EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

-PLANT-UNIQUE TRIP PROCEDURES

-REVISION 2 OF EPGs

  • PROCEDURES OF INTEREST

-REACTOR CONTROL

-CONTAINMENT CONTROL

  • RADIATION RELEASE GUIDELINES NOT INCLUDED

-NOT PART OF TRIP PROCEDURES

-NUREG-0737 SAYS SPDS USED BY OPERATORS RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDANCE OF DEGRADED AND DAMAGED CORE EVENTS

-NUREG-0737 SAYS SPDS USED TO DETERMINE SAFETY STATUS OF PLANT AND ASSESS WHETHER ABNORMAL CONDITIONS WARRANT CORRECTIVE ACTION TO AVOID A DEGRADED CORE

PARAMETER SELECTION CCONT.)

  • NRC REVIEW

-ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS REQUIRED APRM SRM AREA RADIATION CCONTAINMENT7)

PLANT VENT RADIATION CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN CFUTURE)

CONTAINMENT OXYGEN CFUTURE)

-APPEARS TO IMPOSE NEW REQUIREMENTS i

O OPERATOR USE OF SPDS

  • NUREG-0737 SAYS USED BY OPERATORS RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDANCE OF DEGRADED AND DAMAGED CORE EVENTS
  • SRP 18.2 SUGGESTS USE BY

-SHIFT SUPERVISOR

-SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR

-SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR

-ONE REACTOR- OPERATOR

  • PLANT UNIQUE IMPLEMENTATION

-OPERATOR AT PANEL COSA CONTROLLING REACTIVITY

-OPERATOR AT PANELS CO4B AND C, CO3, C484A AND B CONTROLLING ECCS

-SHIFT SUPERVISOR IN MIDDLE OF ROOM RECEIVING DATA AND LOOKING AT PROCEDURES

-STA HAS ACCESS TO DATA

-DISPLAYS ARE CONCISE FOR USER

-SIMULATOR EXPERIENCE SHOWS THIS WORKS WELL

USE OF SPDS CCONT-)

  • NRC REVIEW

-REGIUIRES MORE CONCISE DISPt_AY

-REQUIRES SHIFT SUPERVISOR TO GATHER DATA

-APPEARS TO IMPOSE NEW REQUIREMENT I

I

l q>

l g

4I

_h

' o N O -

/ _,

-- op .

1

- f

' SHIFT SUPERVISOR WORKSTATION DURING EMERGENCIES

, h co3 ,

SPDS VARIABLES

1. DRYWELL PRESSURE
2. DRYWELL TEMPERATURE
3. SUPPRESSION POOL

> TEMPERATURE

4. SUPPRESSION POOL LEVEL F. REACTOR WATER LEVEL
6. REACTOR PRESSURE x
7. GROUP 1 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVE POSITION
8. NEUTRON FLUX fAPRM)

BOTTOM --UNIT 2_ SPDS LAVOUT PEACH

F- . ,

j e i i

TABLE 1 1 Revised SPDS Parameter List Function Reactor Reactivity Reactor Core Coolant Radioact .vity Containment Control Cooling And System Control Conditions

'ISriable Heat Removal Integrity R rctor Water Level X X R rctor Pressure X X Drywall Pressure X X X X Drywall Temperature X Suppr aalon Pool Tcmpers,ture X Suppraccion Pool Lcval X Group I Containment Isolation Valva Position X X X NOutron Flux (APRM) X