ML061430478

Staff Exhibit B to the NRC Staffs Initial Statement of Position Concerning NEC Contention 3 - Standard Review Plan

ML061430478
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	12/31/2002
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Byrdsong A T
References
50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-A, RAS 11661
Download: ML061430478 (19)

Text

WtC stR akt ti,,

-(Formerl NUREG-78 oG087)-

+4 tU.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

STANDARD.REVIEW PLAN p

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 14.2.1 GENERIC GUIDELINES FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TESTING PROGRAMS This Standard Review Plan (SRP) section provides general guidelines for reviewing proposed extended power uprate (EPU) testing programs. This review ensures that the proposed testing program adequately verifies that the plant can be operated safely at the proposed uprated power level.

Power uprates can be classified In three categories. Measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates are less than 2 percent and are achieved by implementing enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power. Stretch power uprates are typically up to 7 percent and do not generally Involve major plant modifications. EPUs are greater than stretch power uprates and have been approved for increases as high as 20 percent.

EPUs usually require significant modifications to major balance-of-plant equipment. A power uprate is classified as an EPU based on a combination of the proposed power increase and the plant modifications necessary to support the requested uprate. This SRP applies only to EPU license amendment requests.

REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary -

Equipment and Human Performance Branch (IEHB)

Secondary -

Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB)

Plant Systems Branch (SPLB)

Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch (SPSB)

Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB)

Electrical and Instrumentation & Controls Branch (EEIB)

Mechanical & Civil Engineering Branch (EMEB)

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Standard review gans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff responsible for the review of applicatons to construct end operate nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part of the Ccmrmssion's policy to Inform the nuclear Industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. Standard reiew plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission's regulations and compliance wIth them is not required. The standard review plan sections are keyed to the Standard Format and Content of Safety AnalysIs Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. Not all sections of the Standard Format have a corresponding review plan.

Published standard reviewplans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new Information and experience.

Comments and suggestions for Improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 20555.

1.

AREAS OF REVIEW The Equipment and Human Performance Branch coordinates the review of the overall power uprate testing program. Secondary review branches are responsible for reviewing EPU applications to ensure that the licensee has proposed an EPU testing program that demonstrates that structures, systems, and components (SSCs) will perform satisfactorily in service at the requested increased plant power level. Secondary review branches will assist IEHB in the review of proposed testing plans and acceptance criteria, as needed.

The review of EPU testing programs should be performed in conjunction with staff reviews of other aspects of the EPU license amendment request.

K->

K)

Paperwork Reduction Act Statemement The information collections contained in this NUREG are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0011.

Public Protection Notification If a means used to Impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-2

li.

'ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA-Extended power uprate test program acceptance criteria are based on meeting the relevant requirements of the following regulations:

Appendix A, 'General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, establishes In Criterion 1, OQuality Standards and Records,' as it relates to establishing the necessary testing requirements for SSCs important to safety, such that there Is reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. However, as discussed in Section 2.1.5.6 of LIC-100, OControl of Licensing Basis for Operating Reactors," the General Design Criteria (GDC) are not applicable to plants with construction permits Issued before May 21, 1971. Each plant licensed before the GDC were formally adopted was evaluated on a plant-specific basis, determined to be safe, and licensed by the Commission..

Criterion Xl, "Test Control," of Appendix B tol0 CFR Part 50, as it relates to establishment of a test program to assure that testing required to demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily In service Is Identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which Incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained In applicable design documents.

10 CFR 50.90, "Application for Amendment of License or Construction Permit," as It relates to an application for an amendment following as far as applicable the form prescribed for original applications; Section 50.34, 'Contents of Applications:

Technical Information," which specifies requirements for the original operating license application, requires that the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) include plans for preoperational testing and initial operations. -

Technical Rationale This review ensures that the proposed EPU testing program adequately demonstrates that SSCs will perform satisfactorily at EPU conditions. In particular, the EPU test program provides assurance that (1) any poiver-uprate related modifications to the facility have been adequately constructed and implemented; and (2) the facility can be operated at the proposed EPU conditions in accordance with design requirements and in a manner that will not endanger the health and safety of the public.

The following paragraphs describe the technical rationale for application of the above acceptance criteria to the review of EPU test programs:

Criterion I of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, establishes the necessary testing requirements for SSCs important to safety; that is, SSCs that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public Also, SSCs Important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functi6ns to be performed. Where generally recognized codes and standards are used, they shall be idehtified and evaluated to determine their applicability. Additionally, aquality assurance program shall be established to ensure that SSCs will satisfactorily perform their safety functions.

14.2.1-3 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002

Application of Criterion I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A. to the EPU test program

- ensureshat-thee rue-sted pWer uprate does not invalidate original testing requirements contained In the original licensing basis. This ensures that SSCs continue to meet their original design specifications. Testing Is performed, as necessary to provide assurance that SSCs continue to meet their design capabilities. For example, testing could be performed to demonstrate that SSCs functions, as expected, actuate in the intended time period and produce the expected flow rate within the expected time period. Original quality assurance standards and applicable codes and standards would be satisfied. The quality assurance program ensures proper documentation and traceability that applicable testing was accomplished, and codes and standards satisfied.

Criterion Xl of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that a test program be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents. The test program requirements include, as appropriate, proof tests prior to installation, preoperational tests, and operational tests of SSCs. Test procedures are required to include provisions for assuring that all prerequisites for the given test have been met, that adequate test instrumentation is available and used, and that the test is performed under suitable environmental conditions. Test results are required to be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.

Application of Criterion Xl of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, to the EPU test program ensures that SSC capabilities to perform specified functions are not adversely impacted by Increasing the maximum allowed power level. This also ensures that deficiencies are Identified and corrected, and that testing activities are conducted in a manner which minimizes operational reliance on untested safety functions. This provides a high degree of assurance of SSC and overall plant readiness for safe operation within the bounds of the design and safety analyses, assurance against unexpected or unanalyzed plant behavior, and assurance against early safety function failures In service. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68, Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, describes the general scope and depth of initial test programs that the NRC staff found acceptable during the review of original operating license applications. The SSCs subject to initial testing performed safety functions that included fission product containment; reactivity monitoring and control; reactor safe shutdown (including maintaining safe shutdown); core cooling; accident prevention; and consequence mitigation as specified In the design and credited in safety analyses.

10 CFR 50.90, RApplication for Amendment of License or Construction Permit,7 requires that each licensee submitting a license amendment request fully describe the changes desired and follow, as far as practicable, the form prescribed for the original application. Section 50.34, Contents of Applications: Technical Information," specifies requirements for the original operating license application.

In particular, 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(iii) requires that each application for a license to operate a facility include in the FSAR plans for preoperational testing and initial operations. The Initial test program (which Includes preoperational testing and testing during initial operation) verifies that SSCs are capable of performing their safety functions as specified in the design and credited in safety analyses.

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-4

Application of 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(iii) to the EPU test program ensures that the licensee submits adiquateTn ormation, commitfients, and plans demonstrating that operation at the requested higher power level will be within the bounds of the design and safety analyses and that EPU testing activities will be conducted in a sequence and manner which minimizes operational reliance on untested SSCs or safety functions. This also ensures that preoperational and Initial startup testing invalidated by the requested Increase In power level are evaluated and reperformed as necessary to demonstrate safe operation'of the plant.

Ill.

REVIEW PROCEDURES The purpose of this review Is to ensure that the proposed EPU testing program adequately controls the Initial power ascension to the requested EPU power level. The EPU test program shall Include sufficient steady-state and transient performance testing to demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily at the requested power level. The proposed EPU test program should be based on a systematic review of the Initial plant test program to identify Initial licensing power-ascension testing that may be invalidated by the requested EPU. Additionally, the EPU test program should include sufficient testing to demonstrate that EPU-related plant modifications have been adequately Implemented.

A.

Comparison of Proposed EPU Test Proaram to the Initial Plant Test Proaram

1.

General Discussion The licensee should provide a comparison of the proposed EPU testing program to the original power-ascension test program performed during Initial plant licensing. The scope of this comparison shall include (1) all power-ascension tests initially performed at a power level of equal to or greater than 80 percent of the original licensed thermal power level; and (2) initial power-ascension tests performed at lower power levels if the EPU would invalidate the test results. The licensee shall either reperform Initial power-ascension tests within the scope of this comparison or adequately justify proposed deviations.

2.

Specific Acceptance Criteria Within its associated technical discipline, each secondary branch reviewer will determine If the licensee has adequately identified the following In the EPU license amendment request:

All power-ascension tests Initially performed at a power level of equal to or greater than 80 percent of the original licensed thermal power level.

All initial power-ascension tests performed at power levels lower than 80 percent of the original licensed thermal power level that would be invalidated by the EPU.

Differences between the proposed EPU power-ascension test program and the portions of the Initial power-ascension program included within the scope of this comparison.

14.2.1-5 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002

The reviewer should refer to the plant-spec fc esting identified in FSAR -

Chapter 14.2, Initial Plant Test Program' (or the equivalent FSAR section for non standard format plants), and startup test reports, if available, to verify that the licensee has adequately identified the scope of the initial plant test program. Additionally, Attachment 1, aSteady-State Power Ascension Testing Applicable to Extended Power Uprates," and, Transient Testing Applicable to Extended Power Uprates,"

to this SRP section provide a generic summary of power-ascension tests performed at or near full power.

If the licensee's proposed EPU test program does not include performance of testing originally performed during the initial plant test program, the reviewer shall ensure that the licensee adequately justifies all differences. The reviewer should refer to Section III.C, below, for guidance on assessing the adequacy of justifications for proposed differences.

B.

Post Modification Testing Requirements for Functions Important to Safety Imracted by EPU-Related Plant Modifications I1.

General Discussion EPUs usually require significant modifications to major balance-of-plant equipment, in addition to setpoint and operating parameter changes.

Therefore, within its respective technical area, each secondary review branch will assess if the licensee adequately evaluated the aggregate impact of EPU plant modifications, setpoint adjustments, and parameter changes that could adversely Impact the dynamic response of the plant to anticipated initiating events. The objective of this review Is to verify that the licensee has proposed a testing program which demonstrates that EPU-related modifications to the facility have been adequately implemented.

The reviewer Is not expected to evaluate the specific component-and system-level testing requirements for each plant modification, parameter change, or setpoint adjustment. Based on previous experience, testing required by Technical Specifications and existing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. quality assurance programs have been adequate to demonstrate Individual system or component performance characteristics. Therefore, this review Is intended to ensure that functions important to safety that rely on the integrated operation of multiple SSCs following an anticipated operational occurrence are adequately demonstrated prior to extended operation at the requested EPU power level.

2.

Specific Acceotance Criteria Based on review of the licensee's EPU license amendment request, the reviewer will determine if the licensee has adequately identified the following:

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-6

plant modifications and setpoint adjustments necessary to support operation at power uprate conditions, and changes in plant operating parameters (such as reactor coolant temperature, pressure, T.,, reactor pressure, flow, etc.) resulting from operation at EPU conditions.

The reviewer should assess if the licensee adequately identified functions important to safety that are affected by EPU-related modifications, setpolnt adjustments, and changes in plant operating parameters. In particular, the licensee should have considered the safety Impact of first-of-a-kind plant modifications, the introduction of new system dependencies or interactions, and changes In system response to Initiating events. The review scope can be limited to those functions important to safety associated with the anticipated operational occurrences described inAttachment 2 to this SRP, 'Transient Testing Applicable to Extended Power Uprates." To assist In this review, also Includes typical transient testing acceptance criteria and functions Important to safety associated with these anticipated events.

The reviewer should verify that the proposed EPU test program adequately demonstrates each function Important to safety that meets all of the following criteria: (1) is impacted by EPU-related modifications, (2)

Is required to mitigate a plant transient listed In Attachment 2, and (3)

Involves the Integrated response of multiple SSCs. If a function important to safety cannot be adequately tested by overlapping Individual component-or system-level tests, the licensee should propose suitable

. system functional testing.

C.

Use of Evaluation To Justify Elimination of Power-Ascension Tests

1.

General Discussion In certain cases, the licensee may propose an EPU test program that does not include all of the power-ascension testing that would normally be required by the review criteria of Sections IILA and HIB above. The licensee Mhall provide an adequate Justification for each of these normally required power-ascension tests that are not Included In the EPU test program. For each proposed test exception within its technical area, each secondary review branch will verify the adequacy of the licensee's justification.:

2.

-Specific Acceptance Criteria If the licensee proposes to not perform a power-ascension test that would normally be required by the review criteria contained in Sections IlI.A and lll.B, above, the reviewer should ensure that the licensee provides an adequate justification. The proposed EPU test program shall be sufficient to adequately demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service. The reviewer should consider the following factors when assessing the adequacy of the licensee's Justification:

14.2.1-7 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002

a.

Previous Operating Experience If the licensee proposes not to perform a required transient test based on operating experience, a review should be conducted to determine the applicability of the operating experience to the specific plant configuration and test requirements. If the licensee references industry operating experience, the reviewer should consider similarity in plant design and equipment; operating power level; and operating and emergency operating procedures.

b.

Introduction of New Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena or Identified System Interactions The reviewer should ensure that the licensee adequately addressed the effects of any new thermal-hydraulic phenomena or system interactions that may be introduced as a result of the EPU.

c.

Facility Conformance to Limitations Associated With Analytical Analysis Methods The licensee's Justification for not performing specific power-ascension testing should Include consideration of the facility conformance to limitations associated with analytical analysis methods. These limitations may include, but are not limited to, plant operating parameters, system configuration, and power level.

d.

Plant Staff Familiarization With Facility Operation and Trial Use of Operatina and Emerngency Operating Procedures Plant modifications and parameter changes, In conjunction with Increased decay heat generation associated with higher power operation, can impact the execution of abnormal and emergency operating procedures. For example, the EPU may change the timing and sequence of significant operator actions used In abnormal and emergency operating procedures, or could impact accident mitigation strategies in abnormal or emergency operating procedures.

For each EPU license amendment request, IEHB reviews the impact of the requested power uprate on operator training and human factors In accordance with separate EPU review standard guidance. These reviews include an evaluation of the changes in operator actions, procedures, and training (including necessary changes to the control room simulator) resulting from the EPU.

Although the initial power-ascension test program objectives, as described in Reference 8, included plant staff familiarization with facility operation and trial use of plant abnormal and emergency operating procedures, the EPU review standard adequately addresses the operator training and human factors aspects of the EPU. Therefore, it is not expected that power-ascension testing DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-8 I

,1

would normally be required for the purposes of procedure

-verfi-ationi-r-operaitor familiarization.

e.

Margin Reduction in Safety Analysis Results for Anticipated Operational Occurrences The licensee's Justification for not performing a particular power-ascension test should include a consideration of the change in the associated safety analysis results due to the proposed EPU. To aid In this review, the Information provided in Attachment 2 to this SRP section Includes a reference to the safety analysis SRP sections related to each transient test, if applicable. For safety analysis acceptance criteria that can be quantitatively measured (e.g. peak reactor coolant system pressure), a reduction in available rhargin by less than approximately 10 percent would normally be considered to be a minimal change in consequences.

The available margin Is the difference between the standard review plan accident analysis acceptance criterion of interest and the plant-specific value calculated at EPU conditions. For larger reductions In available margin, the licensee may consider such factors as the amount of remaining margin; the sensitivity of the results to changes in analysis assumptions; and the capability of transient testing to provide useful confirmatory data.

Although the Initial power-ascension test program objectives, as described In Reference 8, included validation of analytical models and verification of assumptions used for predicting plant response to anticipated transients and postulated accidents, transient testing Is not required for the purposes of analytical code validation for EPU license amendment reviews. The applicability and validation of accident analysis analytical codes is reviewed by the staff in accordance with separate EPU review standard guidance.

f.

Guidance Contained in Vendor Tonical Reports The NRC previously reviewed and accepted General Electric (GE)

Company Licensing Topical Report, "Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate' (referred to as ELTR-1), NEDC-32424P-A, Class 1I1, February 1999, as anbacceptable basis for BWR EPU amendment requests. This topical report provided specific guidance for the performance of Integrated system transient testing at EPU conditions. As described In Section 5.11.9.d and Appendix L.2.4 of ELTR-1, the generator load rejection and the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) tests verify that the plant performance is as predicted and projected from previous test data.

For PWRs, Westinghouse Report WCAP-10263, HA Review Plan for Uprating the Licensed Power of a Pressurized Water Reactor Plant," provides limited guidance for power uprate testing.

Specifically, the document states that the recommended test 14.2.1-9 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December'2002

program for the nuclear steam s!pglytsystelmand-interfacing -_

balnce-of-plant systems be developed on a plant-specific basis depending on the magnitude of hardware modifications and the magnitude of the power uprate.

Although the NRC has previously approved certain exceptions to power-ascension testing requirements, the reviewer should assess the licensee's proposed justifications on a plant-specific basis.

9.

Risk Imrlications For cases where the licensee proposes a risk-informed basis for not performing certain transient tests, SPSB should be consulted to assist In the review. Risk-informed justifications for not performing transient tests should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of performing the testing. In addition to the risks Inherent in Initiating a plant transient, the review should also consider the benefit of identifying potential latent equipment deficiencies or other plant problems under controlled circumstances during transient testing. In any case, a risk-Informed justification should not be used as the sole basis for not performing transient testing.

If the licensee provides adequate justification for not performing certain power-ascension tests, the staff may conclude that the EPU test program is acceptable without the performance of these tests.

D.

Evaluate the Adeguacy of Proposed Transient Testing Plans

1.

General Discussion The EPU amendment request should include plans for the initial approach to the Increased EPU power level and steady-state testing that will be used to verify that the reactor plant operates within design parameters.

2.

Specific Acceptance Criteria For each EPU power-ascension test proposed by the licensee to demonstrate that the plant can be safely operated at EPU conditions, the staff will review the test objectives, summary of prerequisites and test methods, and specific acceptance criteria for each test to establish that the functional adequacy of SSCs Is verified. This review assures that the test objectives, test methods, and the acceptance criteria are acceptable and consistent with the licensing basis for the facility.

Each secondary review branch will review the licensee's plans for the EPU test program within its respective technical area. The licensee's EPU test program should Include the following:

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-10

The inItial approach toAthieuprated EPU power level should be-performed In an incremental manner and include steady-state power hold points to evaluate plant performance above the original full-power level.

The licensee should propose appropriate testing and acceptance criteria that ensure that the plant responds within design predictions. The predicted responses should be developed using real or expected values of Items such as beginning-of-life core reactivity coefficients, flow rates, pressures, temperatures, and response times of equipment and the actual status of the plant, and not the values or plant conditions used for conservative evaluations of postulated accidents.

Contingency plans should be Implemented If the predicted plant response is not obtained.

The test program should be scheduled and sequenced to minimize the time untested functions important to safety are relied upon during operation above the original licensed full-power level.

Safety-related functions relied upon during operation shall be verified to be operable In accordance with existing Technical Specification and Quality Assurance Program requirements.

To assist this review, Attachments I and 2 to this SRP section provide a generic listing of full power steady-state and transient tests and related acceptance criteria that are potentially applicable to an EPU test program.

If a power-ascension test is required to demonstrate that the plant can be

'operated safely at EPU conditions, the reviewer shall determine if a license condition should be Imposed to ensure that this testing Is performed in a timely and controlled manner.

IV.

EVALUATION FINDINGS When the review of the information In the EPU amendment application is complete and the reviewer has determined that It is satisfactory and in accordance with the -

acceptance criteria in Section II above, a statement similar to the following should be provided In the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER):

"The staff has reviewed the EPU test program Information provided In the license amendment request In accordance with SRP Section 14.2.1 and relevant guidance provided In the EPU Review Standard. 'This review Included an evaluation of (1) plans for the Initial approach to the proposed maximum licensed thermal power level, including verification of adequate plant performance, (2) transient testing requirements necessary to demonstrate that the plant can be operated safely at the proposed increased

-maximurn licensed thermal power level, and (3) the test program's conformance with applicable regulations. The staff finds that there Is reasonable assurance that the applicant's EPU testing program-satisfies the requirements of Criterion XI, 'Test Control,'of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. and Is therefore acceptable."

14.2.1-1 1 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002

V.

IMPLEMENTATION This SRP section will be used by the staff when performing safety evaluations of EPU license amendment applications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. This SRP is not intended to be used In place of plant-specific licensing bases to assess the acceptability of an EPU application. Applicability of this SRP is determined on a plant-specific basis consistent with the licensing basis of the plant In addition, where the NRC has approved a specific methodology (e.g., topical report) for the type of power uprate being requested, licensees should follow the format prescribed for that specific methodology and provide the information called for in that methodology and the NRC's letter and safety evaluation approving the methodology.

Except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, the method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with Commission regulations.

VI.

REFERENCES

1.

10 CFR Part 52, §52.47 OContents of Applications.'

2.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. Criterion Xl, "Test Control."

3.

NUREG-1503, 'Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor," Volumes I and 2, July 1994.

4.

SECY-01-0124, "Power Uprate Application Reviews," dated July 9, 2001. The related Staff Requirements Memorandum Is dated May 24, 2001.

5.

General Electric Company Licensing Topical Report. "Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate" (ELTR-1), NEDC-32424P-A, Class III, February 1999.

6.

General Electric Company Licensing Topical Report, "Generic Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate," (ELTR-2), NEDC-32523P-A, Class 1iI, February 2000, and Supplement 1, Volumes I and II.

7.

General Electric CoImpany Licensing Topical Report, "Constant Pressure Power Uprate,'

NEDC-33004P, Revision 1, July 2001.

8.

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.68, "Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 2, August 1978.

9.

NRR Office Instruction LIC-1 00, "Control of Licensing Basis for Operating Reactors."

10.

NRR Office Instruction LIC-1 01, "License Amendment Review Procedures."

11.

NRR Office Instruction LIC-500, 'Processing Requests for Reviews of Topical Reports."

12.

Westinghouse WCAP-10263, "A Review Plan for Uprating the Licensed Power of a Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plant," January 1983.

DRAFT Rev. 0- December 2002 14.2.1-12

13.

NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, '10 CFR Part 50.59, Changes, Tests and Experiments-ChangeNotice-Number 01-008.

14.

NRC Information Notice 2002-26, "Failure of Steam Dryer Cover Plate After a Recent Power Uprate," September 11, 2002.

14.2.1-13 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002

Steady-State Power Ascension Testing Applicable to Extended Power Uprates Power Ascension Test Reference Recommended Initial Condetbons Typical Test Acceptance Criteria Primary Technical Review Branch Conduct vibration testing Regulatory Guide (RG) 1 68, lowest practical power level reactor vessel and reactor coolant system EMEB and monitonring of reactor App A component vibrtion charactenscs within design vessel internals and reactor 4.s. 5.9 See NRC Information Notice 2002-26 and RG 1 20 coolant system components I

Measure power reactivity RG 1 68. App A 100% of RTP characterbitics In accordance with design SRXB coelficients (PWR) or power 5.a vs flow charactenstics (BWR)

I Steady-state core RG 1 68. App A 100% of RTP charactenstics In accordance with design SRXB performance 5 b control rod patterns RS 1 68. App A power equal to highest power level that rod core lImits not exceeded SRXB exchange 5 o exchanges will be sllowed at power Control rod misafignmtent RG 1 68. App A 100% of RTP demonstrate ablty to detect misalIgnment SRXB tesbng 51 rod misalignment equal to or less than TS Failed fuel detection system RG 1 68. App A 100% of RTP verify proper operation IEHB 5q Plant process computer RG 1.68. App A 100% of RTP inputs and calculation are correct SPLBIEEIB 5r Calibrate major or principal RG 1.68, App A 100% of RTP venry performance SRXBISPLB plant control systems 5.s Main steam and man RG 1.68. App A 100% of RTP operate in accordanca with design performance SPLB feedwater system operation 5v requinrments Shield and penetrebon RG 1 68. App A 100% of RTP maIntain temperature within design lbmrts SPLB cooling sysloms 5 v.

ESF auxiliary and RG 1.66. App A 100% of RIP capable of perfonming design functions SPLB environmental systems 5 x, Calibrate systems used to RG 168, App A 100% o1 RTP veriy perlormance EEl!

determine reactor thermal 5 y p

power Chemical and radlochemIcal RG 1 68. App A 100% o RTP control systems function In accordance Wilih design IEHB control systems 5.a a Sample reactor coolant RG 1 68, App A 100% of RTP clemistry imits are not exceeded EMCBI system and secondary 5.aaI coolant systems DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-14 ATTACHMENT 1

('S

(

Q Power Ascension Test Reference Recommended Initial Conditions Typical Test Acceptance Criteda Pdmary Technical Review Branch Radlationsurveys RG 1.68. AppA 100% of RTP shiebling adequacy and Identify 10 CFR Part 20 IEHB flbb high-radiation Marv" Ventilation systems Rt 1 68. App A 100% Of RTP maintain erie areas within design limits SPLB (Incuding pIlmmry 4 1 and 5 r f containment and steam tine tunnel)

Acceptabilly of reactor RO I O8. App A.

Lowest practical power level parametrs withIn design values EMEB Internals, pipmg, and 11a.1, l.a 3,1 a

• and 6 o o component movement, vibmailons.ernd expansions z! 't I

I-i'.I i

i i

ii i

DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-15 ATTACHMENT I

Transient Testing Apolicable to Extended Power Uprates Transient Test Reference Typical Reactor Plant Initial Typical Transient Test Acceptance Criteria and Applicable Accident Analyses Conditions Associated Functions Important to Safety (SRP Section)

Relief valve lbsbng RG 1 68, App A Reactor power level at predetermined Relief valve raling al a specified pressure selling 15.1.2 Inadvertent Opening or a 4 p and 51 power level plateaus Steam Generator Relief or Delay bme between Ihe signal Initlating relief valve opening and Safely Valve Inspection At reliaevalves set In auto the start of motion Procedure (IP) 15 6.1 Inadvertent Opening f a PWR 72510 IndivIdual valve functional tests at Opening stroke tnime of Me main valve disc and distance Pressunrer Pressure Reiiel prescribed power level plateaus Valve or a 8WR Ptessure I ClosIng stroke time of tha main valve piston rollowing release or Relief Valve Individual valve capacity tests at low power the pneumatically operated mechanical push rod (26% of RTP) using bypass valve movement or turbine generator output as a measurementi varable Dynamic response of plant RG 1 68. App A IOD% or RTP Perfonmance In accordance with design to design toad swings 5.h.h Reactor core Isolation IP 72512 Steady-stale reactor operations at rated Startup from hot standby conditions and discharge of rated flow cooling functional lest lernperature and pressure into the reactor vessal at rated pressure and temperature within e spectfiad time RCIC aligned for standby operation Venfication of maximum rated flow Isolation tnp Reactor power at approximately 25% of RTP Verfication of overspeed trip Turbine gland seal condenser system shall prevent steam leak to atmosphere Dynamic response of plant RG 1 65. App A 100% of RTP Performance In accordance with deslgni 15 3 1 (SWR) & 15 3 2 (PWR) to limiting reactor coolant 511 pump tinps or closure of Trip from steady-slate power operation Instrumentation Is adjusted to provide an accurate conversion of Loss of Forced Reactor reactor coolant system flow IP 72512 individual let pump Ap values to a summed core flow over the Coolant Flow Including Trip of control valves Recording of transients following tnp and range or Iwo-pump operations Pump Motor durnng pump restart (Reactor coolant Recirculatlon pump inslrumentabon Is calibrated reclrculatlon pump trip test)

Recording or Ilimling heal transfer parameters Loop flow from single4ap and double-tap pumps agrees within 3%

Return to two-pump operation In accord with facility operating procedures Core flow from single-tap and double-lap pumps agrees within 2%

Trip of a single pump and of both pumps simultaneously Individual jet pump fow variation from average pump flow Is limited Dynamic response of the R3 1.68. App A 90% of RTP performance In accordance with design 15.1.1 Decrease In Feedwater plant to loss of feedwater 5k k Temperature healers that results In most severe reedwater temperature reduction DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-16 ATTACHME -kmT 9 K

I

Q K

Transient Test Reference Typical Reactor Plant Initial Typical Transient Test Acceptance Criteria and Applicable Accident Analyses Conditions Associated Functions Important to Safety (SRP Section)

Dynamic response of plant R0 18 8, Appendix plant performance In accordance with design 15 2.7 Loss of Normal Feedwater to lose of feedwater flow A, Section 5 Flow (Introduction)

Dynamc response of plant RC 1.88, App A 100% of RiP with electrical system ralIgned Performance In accordancewith design. hdudhln 15.2.6 Loss f NonemergencyAC[

for full oad rejection S n for normal lull-power operation and toad Power to the Station rejection method should "aubjct turbine to Automatic transfer of plant loads as designed. automaltc stdt of Auxillari es (Loss of 6lfslte Power IP 72517 mashnumn credible overspeed conditn diesel generators. automatso load of diesel genertors In the Tasting) apecilegd seqenc IP 72582 steady-state plant operstions with greater than 10% generator output (IP 72517 &

Reactor pressure remains below the first safety valve setting 72582I.

Pressurlzer safety valves do not lift trip of the plantwilti breierst h specified Al safety systems sudc as RPS, HPCI. dIesel generators, and positions so that plant loads nilt be RCIC function without manual assistance transferred dhi to the diesel generators following oss of house power Normal reactor cooling sy51ems should maintain adequate core lemperalures. emd prevent actuailon of the Automatic recrecutalin system low control mode Depressurization Systenr however selected relief valves may specified function to control pressure Turbine bypas system operates to maintain specifded pressure value Steam system power ectuated pressure relief valves open and close at specified value Pressurizer spray valves open and dose at speclied values.

Reactor coolant lempersturaepressuro relationship remains within prescribed values Pressurizer level Is maintained within prescribed Oimits Steam generator level remains within prescribed imits DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-17 ATTACHMENT 2

Transient Test Reference Typical Reactor Plant Initial Typical Transient Test Acceptance Cnteria and Applicable Accident Analyses Conditions Associated Functions Important to Safely (SRP Section)

Dynamic response of plant RG 1 68. App A tnp from steady state operation al greater Performance In accordance wilh design, Including 15 2.1 Turbine Trip to turbine trip 511 than 95% of RTP reactor coolant pumpsdosr not trip (Turbine trip or generator IP 72580 nhation of the test by trip of the main trip)

IP 72514 generatoroutput breaker pressurIzer sprayvalve opens and coses at the specified values recirculatlon system flow control mode must reactor pressure remains below the selpoint of the first safety be specifed valves, pressunzer safety valves do not lift or weep pressurizer evel within prescribed lkmits steam system power acluated pressure retlef valve opens and coses at specified values reactor coolant pressurellemperature relatIonship remains vithin defned valies steam generator level remains within prescrbed limits, no flooding of the steam lines during the transient, no initiation of ECCS and MSIV Isolation during the transient turbine bypass system operates to maintain specific pressure (plants with 1001 bypass capability shal remain at power without screm during the transIent) plants with select-rd-insertion shall maintain power without scram from rectrculation pump overspeed or cold feedwater effect reactor protection system functions should be venflied all safely and ECCS systems such as RPS, HPCIt diesel generators, and RCIC function without manual assistance if caled upon normal reactor coding systems should maintain adequate cooling and prevent actuation of automatik depressurization system, even though rakele valves may function to control pressure plant electrical loads (transferred as designed) turbine overspeed cntens met Dynamic response of plant RG 1 68. App A Initial power level of 100% of RTP performance in accordance with design 15.2A Main Steam Isolation Valve to automatic closure of an s mrm Closure (6WR) main steam Isolation valves acceptance criterIa Include MSIV closing time I_.P72510 DRAFT Rev. 0 - December 2002 14.2.1-18 ATTACHMENT 2

NRC FORM 335 NROM 1102.

S201.=2 US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

1. REPORT NUMBER (Assigned by NRC, Add YoL. Supp., Rev, and Addendum Numbes I anry)

I -

--

I--

-wvws@IJ 2 TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan.

142.1, Generic Guidelines For Extended Power Uprate Testing Programs NUREG-0800 3

DATE REPORT PUBUSHED MONTH YEAR December 2002

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHORCS) 6.TYPE OF REPORT Robert Pettis Kevin Coyne Paul Cott

7. PERIOD COVERED PvAmw Wes)

IL PERFORMNG ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS pIRac p eD Ouaucn OuarPepras.

5U MIUrRagu>nandmatgaddazsmScro,.

Division of Inspection Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING oRGANIzATIoN NAME AND ADDRESS JVAM Mm DamssabmlrCnar&W p~vdeNRCrYM Oftsrfiepc US AkCr~rPP>ua 71Jmsw andm asa;bove Sarne as above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES tl.ABSTRACT 9conds ass)

This Standard Review Plan (SRP) section provides general guidelines for reviewing proposed extended power uprate (EPU) testing programs. Tis review ensures that the proposed testing program adequa tely verifies that the plant can be operated safely at the proposed uprated power level.

12. KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS rards ases ftt wie asselfaseaawhrsi bi oarm5 VW gPj 13 AVAIIASM STATEMENT Extended Power Uprate, EPU, testing, test program, power ascension testing, tra nsient testing unlimited

1. 1-14 SECULTY CLASSIFICA1ON mlus Page)I unclassified Muhs Remv unclassified 15 NUMBER OF PAGES 18 PRICE NRbC FOFII 335 (24)

Thas bnn was *ba-vnically plm7ucd by Eke Fedrl Fonns. k=