ML20199G637

Summary of 981222 Meeting with NEI in Rockville,Md to Allow Representatives from WOG & CEOG Opportunity to Brief NRC on Proposals Re PASS Capabilities & to Provide Staff with Opportunity to Comment on Proposals

ML20199G637
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/14/1999
From:	Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9901220361
Download: ML20199G637 (40)

Text

.-

a cEcu p*

1 UNITED STATES g

,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

't WASHINGlCW, D.C. 20555-0001 s

.g January 14, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

FROM:

Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager h4 d -

b

~

Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch v

l Division of Reactor Program Management Office cf Nuclear Reactor Regulation d

l

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 22,1998, MEETING WITli THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING POST ACC; DENT SAMPLING SYSTEMS (PASS)

On December 22,1998, representatives of the Nuclear Energy Insti ute (NEI) met with t

representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to allow representatives from the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) and the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) an opportunity to brief the NRC on their proposals regarding Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) capabilities and to provide the staff with the opportunity to comment on the proposals. provides a list of meeting attendees and Attachment 2 provides the agenda used

~

for the meeting.

The NRC staff opened the meeting by stating that the staff was particularly interested in hearing 4

about hardships caused by PASS and emergency planning (EP) considerations in the proposals to remove or reduce PASS capabilities.

The first presentation was made by a representative of the WOG. This presentation is included as Attachment 3. The WOG discussed PASS information timeliness and accuracy, alternatives I

for obtaining PASS information, and use of PASS information in supporting core damage assessments and accident management (AM) decisions. The WOG is recommending the 4

following ssmpling requirements instead of the current NUREG-0737 recommendations: reactor j

coolant system boron within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />; containment sump chlorides within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for plants i

susceptible to potential high chloride concentrations with active pH control; and, containment hydrogen.

The next presentation was made by a representative of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) -

and is included as Attachment 4. The main point of the presentation was that the PASS at WCGS is comprised of obsolete equipment that is expensive and labor intensive to maintain.

Because of this, WCGS is proposing to modify its PASS sampling capabilities and to rely on grab samples rather than an in-line PASS. A detailed listing of their recommended sampling DW h

9901220361 990114

?

PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC l

PDR p p,(Ro$

T. Essig

-2 January 14, 1999 requirements is included in their presentation material. The WCGS representative noted that they are requesting staff review of two WOG topical reports and their amendment request by May 1999.

A representative of the CEOG made the next presentation. The material from this presentation

{

is included as Attachment 5. The representative noted that the CEOG intends to submit a topical report which is similar to the WOG submittal and that the objective is to eliminate unnecessary features of the PAGS in all CEOG plants.

Representatives of the Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group and the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group stated that, although they have no plans for submittals related to modification of PASS, they were keeping informed of the NRC review of the WOG and CEOG proposals.

Additional discussions focused on the use of radionuclide isotopic assessments from PASS capabilities for EP purposes and on potential resource savings related to the proposed modif; cation to PASS commitments. The majority of the cost associated with PASS was related to in-line sampling systems and the industry discussed software problems associated with year-i 2000. The NRC staff stated that licensees have demonstrated compliance with PASS capability requirements by obtaining grab samples for radiological analysis; an in-line sampling system can also meet the objective of promptly obtaining and analyzing reactor coolant and containment atmosphere samplea for radioisotopes. The staff highlighted the need to maintain an effective capability to promptly obtain and analyze samples in sccordance with the guidance in NUREG-0737 and RG 1.97. The staff noted that licensees need to consider (1) the effect that proposed changes to sampling methods and procedures would have on their EP plan in light of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and (2) the data requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section VI. The staff also noted that the industry submittals would benefit from the input of EP specialists j

The staff agreed with the industry that " initial" protective actions recommendations delineated in EP plans should be based upon plant conditions. However the staff indicated their belief that there is a need to have the capability to continuously assess events to confirm or modify the protective actions. One aspect of the event assessment is dose assessment. Among the sources of radiologicalinformation potentially available during an event, the staff was of the opinion that dose assessment should reflect input on the radioisotopes available for release.

This information would be obtained from the PASS. Dose assessments do not rely solely on such information, but information from PASS was considered important in assessing the potential impact of the accident on the public and in evaluating the protective action recommendations. The staff indicated that they would like to hear from the industry what kind of information, including PASS, the industry believes is required to provide short-and long-term protective actions, and the basis for this belief.

1 l

r T. Essig 3

January 14, 1999 l

r l

The NRC and industry recognized that timely resolution of issues was necessary to allow time for industry to take action to ensure PASS systems meet either the current or modified commitments. The staff plans to continue to review the topical reports that have been submitted i

and is willing to meet with the industry again to discuss modifications to them or additional submittals on this subject.

Project No. 689 t

l Attachments: As stated

.s i

cc w/att: See next page i

l t

i i

I t

l l

1 0

l

?

~

.g.

. T. Essi9

-3 January 14, 1999 The NRC and industry recognized that timely resolution of issues was necessary to allow time for industry to take action to ensure PASS systems meet either the current or modified commitments. The staff plans to continue to review the topical reports that have been submitted and is willing to meet with the industry again to discuss modifications to them or additional submittals on this subject.

Project No. 689 -

Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page f

Document Name: g:\\SLM1\\msum1222.wpd I,

OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PERB BC:PERB 6 SC:PMBk g

NAME SMagrudNw BZalemM CMiller (fyn esc /

I 1/ / //99 l

/

DATE 1/ G/99 1/ ly/99 1/ / 2, /99 l

l i

I i

f t

\\

54i io~

\\)

Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re PASS Dated January 14, 1999 Hard Coov Central Files l

PUBLIC PGEB R/F i

OGC ACRS SMagruder JO'Brien l

EMail SCollins/RZimmerman 1

BSheron BBoger DMatthews TEssig CMiller FAkstulewicz BZaleman JO'Brien FKantor i-CWillis StaVie RLandry l

MBlumberg TSullivan MSnodderly KParczewski PWen SNewberry SRoudier l

GTracy, EDO l-l l

4

, {)*

l t

NRC/NEl MEETING ON PASS LIST OF ATTENDEES December 22,1998 NAME ORGANIZATION Kurt Cozens NEl Dave Modeen NEl Alan Nelson NEl

- Ray Schneider ABB/CEOG i

Jim Andrachek Westinghouse Dale Lemmons Wolf Creek Tony Harris Wolf Creek Larry Lucas TMI/B&WOG Dennis Boyd Entergy (ANO)

. ReNae Partridge Entergy (ANO)

Tom Green GE/BWROG Brian Sheron NRC/NRR

- Charles Willis NRC/NRR Charles Miller NRC/NRR Steve LaVie NRC/NRR Ralph Landry NRC/NRR Mark Blumberg NRC/NRR Ted Sullivan NRC/NRR Barry Zaleman NRC/NRR Michael Snodderly NRC/NRR l

Kris Parczewski NRC/NRR Peter Wen NRC/NRR Falk Kantor NRC/NRR

. Serge Roudier NRC/NRR Scott Newberry NRC/NRR Jim O'Brien NRC/NRR Stewart Magruder NRC/NRR l

i I

l

~

k INDUSTRYlNRC STAFF MEETING ON PASS SUBMITTALS AGENDA DECEMBER 22,1998 ITEM topic RESPONSIBLE PARTY 1.

Welcome and Opening Remarks NRC NEl 2.

WOG-Overview of Submittal Westinghouse Wolf Creek 3.

CEOG - Overview of Submittal ABB-CE 4.

Status of Activity on Other PASS TBD 5.

NRC Feedback on Industry Submittals NRC 6.

Discussion on PASS activities All 7.

Closing Comments and Review of Action items NRC NEl 8.

Adjourn i

l 4

Post Accicient Sampling System (PASS) y 1

. sD G 1 A.:....z & h waOY - A.

.. $: ',' h.,....

4,., h..E.- $.

b

g '

!'i

~

w.

h l

i i

Jim Andrachek l

f, l

Westinghouse / Westinghouse Owners Group i

l December 22,1998 i

0 N'

s BACKGROUND iddanid dsaw... 5 A Attsc h eim m:

c hAWhethe 4 a.a.udunuman A a.

13..

= NUREG-0737 Requirements Developed After the TMI-2 Accident

. Addressed Problems / Deficiencies Encountered During the Accident and Recovery

. Based on 1980 Knowledge of Severe Accidents

.Section II.B.3 Contains Guidance for PASS Requirements l

l W@D J

l BACKGROUND am.m.w.. ahuma.mmmmeh am aaltruamama.=.a x __

2..

i i

= WCAP-14696,"WOG Core Damage Assessment Guidance" (CDAG) i i

. Transmitted to NRC on 11-23-96 i

i

. Revises 1984 WOG CDAG

. Utilizes Installed Plant Instrumentation for Real Time Accident Management (AM) Decisions l

= WCAP-14986,"WOG PASS Requircinents: A Technical Basis"

):

. Transmitted to NRC on 10-26-98

. Provides Technical Basis for PASS Requirements

. Based on WCAP-14696 CDAG Conclusions ENND l

3

l SEVERE ACCIDENT KNOWLEDGE s

I h.4m b h.; A. A.'+.,, h A sk.e k&M#hA hA W.*h..4AaJ43__adLEemimmhm W..

L...

4 w Se

, m..

i j

= Significant Core Damage Accident Research has l

been Completed Between 1980 and 1998

. Raises Issues of Accuracy and Timeliness of PASS Information Based on the 1980 Requirements l

i

. Revised CDAG Addresses these Issues

. Provides a Basis for AM Decision-Making that does not rely on PASS Information j

I

= Severe Accident Management Guidance (SAMG) has been Developed and Implemented at WOG Plants A

I

I ACCURACY OF PASS INFORMATION I

~ %...... m.~..

- _ 1.. _ _. _ _

= Issues Related to PASS Information Accuracy l

. Holdup of radionuclides and hydrogen in the RCS can j

mfluence PASS results

. Sample location (RCS and containment) can influence l

sample results during transient portions of a core damage accident

. Plateout of chemical species in sample lines can j

impact sample results W@D s

,.,------_.,,,,,-,....-,,---,.,-,..--,_,-,,.,.,----,...,,.....,_,_.n,..,.n...

i TIMELINESS OF PASS INFORMATION i

f 4... A.

• a a wm.a 2,. 4 ;4. 4 d.mt h A.. <h A 4.....

an w.. u a

m..

xn x. Abbc<a. :%

l

= Issues related to timeliness of PASS Information i

Identifying need for sample and obtaining results

+ Not useful during transient portions of a core damage accident

+ Only useful during stable conditions -- most major AM i

actions have already been taken l

Ability to obtain necessary samples

+ Not all samples can be obtained during a core damage accident due to sample location and/or required support conditions 1

i.

i ALTERNATIVES FOR OBTAFSING PASS INFORMATION

)

n.

a

...a :..

r. m n.n.a s ~..a w n.- -

s w -rc x.

i l

a CDAG Approach l

Installed plant instrumentation can provide sufficient l

information for some AM decisions Calculational methods, using information from the plant computer, can provide information where instrumentation is insufficient l

AM decisions are typically made based on these l

alternate indications I

t v.

, - - - -,.m.,--,,

e w r,,

.-..,,..--....-,--~,-.-,,......,..e,..m.s m

m.,

....--.-.--,m_.---,,

-...- m...

m---..,.-.w...,.m,.--

_,..,r,.,m.

.c.

-.-w->-e

l ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT i--

JM

....c

. ~. ~

i i

= Present PASS use in AM Decisions l

i

. EOPs 4

+ There is only one EOP step where the AM decision is based on a sample

= RCS boron is requested before going to cohl shutdown for the l

case of reactor trip but no SI required j

=

Not necessary to obtain from PASS

. SAMG l

+ SAMG was deliberately written to avoid the need for samples due to the time delay in obtaining results.

l l

W@T3 8

l i

i l

I ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT

$. c.: w 4.'. s.' i_ _..

]

, -..i.mm a.1 2, -

....tAL. au..,.

w_,

. xA u A.ams.* eaaenw m _..:...-,

i Present PASS use in AM Decisions (continued) l

=

. Emergency Plan PASS not utilized in

+

Revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) criteria

=

1998 Westinghouse Owners group CDAG

=

Offsite Dose Assessment

=

i i

I i

[g[;

E 9

~ -

a y- - - -,.

w,-

.,n

--.w--.,we.,,.w-w4-r,---.--.-

...--,~,,.w-.---,,,,.-,m.,.<,-..-._,,..,w.

s~,...s.n.

,--..r,,.w.--r-,,

y**ws-=-v'... -,,,,

--,--,.w--

I RECOMMENDED SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

.i

.. s 2.: ;;.

a. mu a x

.~t.

.nmu u, ww I

= RCS Boron within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> l

. Information is useful for assuring long term safe stable conditions after an accident 1

)

= Containment Sump Chlorides within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for plants susceptible to potential high chloride concentrations with active pH control l

. Information is useful for assuring long term safe stable conditions after an accident Containment Hydrogen l

=

. Information is useful for assuring integrity of j

contamment after an accident wcn m

--,-,.m

---

w-q w

_4---ama-d.,,,asasaem_

m-

,,4--,..-_Am d.h-pieie-K.4.

A__

• 42a_D mm.a-M m.4.4a-4.a_.wu--

a5a&&reh4-4&-Am

-.m-ma-aA-m,aha 1

6 g

p.

,a

-r --

p# i4 bs f,q;,W.e ys

.gr.

Qf ajd [W a'._

,1 fy

\\

-p. %

fr

'~' '

i '

r

%y T

r

\\

l'

\\

i l

\\

s

.f

\\

)

)

0

.y

^

\\

I 1

h

\\

^

p

,. ~

r a

\\

, ugptc" s

W 4..yp.9 w w eK y

y y$kf_

^u f

M;h,. 2.;y,:n;;' g,a y g h e..z,.s v.h. -

.u y

\\

,f< Q.'!,'m g,-Sk..."qf.

s

%h.

h b

M5~r

\\

~

\\

Q_.s_a

{*1,N,Q r

\\

1 d.,

Q,~g? ;'

..,'E

,f,$)e.;-

,n

'-,.m

\\

d m -

t',

s 4 y.

k

. C.

'iD,' 4 v wu ?

g

\\

}w{"+%

9-

?-

.-l,. %_"l"~

}

a s R

e j'.g (~~ ?. '

w;>

v

\\

4 *:

g~

\\

R i

\\

b,

~y r

a

\\o y

g g,a i

y o

\\

O rp O

\\

g a

w.

d i

p p

8

+

p+

o

, f.

O I

r ;

A O

4 s

\\a&n 4

p A

d

%e&

1 i

+

,,1s,s-p.

p-tJ:

iWfp hh8 A

\\

y

%'%F neh

\\, \\! k h }$ M M@I pi*

er L

d k' i b

ny 8

s. c m 4

9 p

~

i m'

+

s

\\

.< r

\\

iL s; y g

.s.

w s:Q, s I

..gll;pF'p W W M z

o O

\\ P W '~

f o,

t o

\\

y:s,g p

v.: ~

"5

\\,

6

(

d) e 3

T f

~

Ng,.y G

4 i

s 9

\\

\\

s

\\

. M r

,sf.

1,oo.

-Tc g,}J' e

4 as'.,. -

h74a k

1 i

I i

I

• • .s-,

lE Overview History of WCGS PASS l

+ Extensive maintenance required to keep l

system functional 1-2 man-persons / week for routine maintenance Equipment breakdowns require additional 4

dedicated resources

+ Little to no vendor support for the k

system / components

]-

^ Analyzers within the system are obsolete

}

+ PASS computer is non-Y2K compliant 4

. ~

uia wei i..

l.

Future Costs For WCGS 18~

i:

e.

)

+ 2 of 6 analyzers currently need replacement q

or extensive work l

In-line boron analyzer - estimated S685K 4

Radioisotopic analyzer - estimated S750K 4

3

+ Remaining 4 will need replacement within l

{![

2-5 years - estimated S200K total l

j

+ Total replacement costs estimated at S2M El

1 e # "r

'V" t y=

4 l

t l'

Radiological Benefits to WCGS H

g v

i e,

i 1.'..'i C':

lng

+ Reduce potential for contamination events i

c-Eliminate unnecessary work in restrictive d

location Reduce potential for leak / failure points 4

y y

.i l

l+

g 5

r

• f.

'a F

i k

i i

i.

- hh/i

'k

+

'S

-j ';.

e

j WCGS Goals for PASS Reduction-

1

!i i

ii

.~

J i

!' Vp

+ Focus training and maintenance activities on necessary functions l

+ Reduce overall O&M expenses

+

l (

+ Avoid significant capital expenditures

~

b j

Ay

+ Address known Y2K issues T

~

l l

~

bbhibNAN NA5 k d

I~.

f e

!c.c WCGS Goals for PASS Reduction f,,

l Allow plant personnel to focus post-

+

accident attention on real-time data d

j

+ Eliminate unnecessary burden while l

9 continuing to ensure the health and safety of a

i3 the public is adequately protected ia t

1 1

l

.x :

---.+-,-n,,,,

,,--,----w.,-,-,~w,,--,-,v.,-.,-.,-_,.w,,

.,,_,,,,.,,,n,,..,,-,-,--,,,,.

--.,,.,,...--,,an,,....nn.,,..--

,.n

.w

.-,,n,wvw.,--~,---n,-,,

..,-,,,-r n,

4 Y

N ~ REG 0737 and Reg. Guide 1.97 4'

,.t; -

uldance S a m p ie P o ln t N

I A a a ly sis

" " * = = "

• a Cem m e n is R e g u la to r y A c eld e n t Emergency

7[

Managemeni P la n n In g G 4,.

RCS D is s o lv e d Gases 737/l.97 EMG N/A D e le te 11ydregen 737/1.97 N /A N /A D elete Oxygen 1.97 N/A N/A D elete p 11 1.97 N/A N/A D e le te k

I C h lo r ld e s 737/l.97 N/A N /A D e le te Boron 737/1.97 EM G N/A R e ts in

(

p C o n d a c liv It y N /A N/A N /A D e le te R a d le n a c lid e s 737/I.97 N /A EAL D e le te kiG I' ?$

N o te:

N G ra b s a m p ie c a p a b ility w ill b e re ta in e d y

B o ro n s a m p ie ta k e n v ia g ra b s a m p le fo r s u b s e q u e n t a n a ly sis g

a

'-d G

737/l.97 re fe rs to N U R E G -0 7 3 7 and R e g u la to ry G u id e 1.97 Rev 2 l

!*=

re s p e c liv e ly EMG and SAM re fe r to th e a p p lic a b le EMG and SAM p ro c e d u re EAL re fe rs to EP O I - 2.1 - 1, R e v iI," Emergency A c tio n L e y e ls" 1

.,,.,,.w....

.n.,,,.

n W

,.T.h e

e

8 uguyasu i.m

'W N

~

N ~ REG 0737 and Res. Guide 1.97 Li

%/

G m id a n c e

)

S a m p ie P e in i 1t[

C o m m e n ts

/ A a s ly sis R e g u la to r y A c cid e n t Emergency

" ~

0 M anagem ent P la n n in g @

y i

h C o n t a in m ent f

Atmosphere 11ydrogen 737/l.97 EM G /S A M EAL

• R e ta in 0

0xygea N/A N/A N/A D e le te O

R a d to a a elld e s 737/1.97 SAM N/A D elete O

4 C o n t a in m eni k

Sum p p

p li 1.97 EM G N /A D e le te O

(

C h lo r id e s I.97 N/A N/A D e le te O

g sL t1 8oron 1.97 N/A N/A D elete O

' 7/l R a d Io n u c lid e s I.97 EM G EAL D elete O

N o te :

g]

O G ra b s a m p le c a p a b ility w ill b e re ta in e d p

?

O 737/1.97 re fe rs to N U R E G -0 7 3 7 and R e g u la to ry G u id e 1.97 Rev.2

).'gl 4

re s p e e tiv e ly O

EMG and SAM re fe r to th e a p p lic a b le EM G and SAM p ro c e d u re EAL re fe rs to EP 0 1 - 2.1 - 1, R e v II," Emergency A c tio n L e y e ls" l

I

-. ~.

t~-

V W h -b

~

Y

h k,

$ ~e'l ( h a f +. 5,

s.

k-s

..E.;I Ar.Els' d d'N)$YINE C DUdN$28,ILd3S.U.;AO '. >

e

l 1

l WCGS Sche _d_ule 4~

11 i

b, e,

+ WCAP-14696 submitted 11/22/96 i.

+ WCAP-14986 submitted 10/26/98 l

4 i

4; si

+ WCGS submittal 11/10/98 s

w

~~

(

Request NRC completion of review by 5/15/99 l

+

,.,,..-~-e,-.--

-,.~,w-

. e moe...,, -, -,. -,,.

.-e.

,,.~-.,sm.e.-,.---..

+ -

%.s~~.

'l

.~

= ",

gt

l CEOG PASS ELIMINATION PROJECT 4

Ray Schneider, ABB 1

i i

O: t 1

1

, d MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12l 22/98 Attachrm.nt 5

4 t

I CEOG PASS Elimination

...-,, =, -, y w m.

Agenda:

i e Purpose of PASS elimination for CEOG plants e Historical Basis e Why eliminate PASS, and why now?

e Assessment of Current Pass Requirements e Project Schedule i

4 1

3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98

,--___.-._....,__.,,m_,,...

,,_.,,._,..,,,,_......,._,_.,,.,,___,m.

,,,,,,,,._,.m-.-

c

CEOG PASS Elimination i

Objective:

o Eliminate unnecessary features of the post accident sampling system (PASS)in all CEOG plants remove PASS requirements from CEOG plant licensing bases discontinue operation and maintenance activities on selected PASS components S

l 1

<d 3MBUSTION ENGif4EERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting, 121?2/98 k

4

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

CEOG PASS Elimination Project

~

e PASS requirements proposed to be modified to l

reflect their role in accident management and post accident decision making process e Expected requests for PASS relaxation will include:

l Deletion of requirement to monitor RCS total gas /

hydrogen (high pressure RCS samples) l Deletion of PASS requirement for radionuclide isotopic assessment Relaxation of timing and accuracy for RCS boron sampling Deletion of Chloride Sample Requirements Sc\\

i

\\d 3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98

--l

l 1

CEOG PASS Elimination 1

i Strategy:

e Demonstrate that PASS is not relied on for responding to and recovery from an accident at CEOG plants i

e Establish technical basis for relaxation of post accident sampling requirements, sufficient to eliminate PASS for core damage i

assessment at CEOG plants 4

i C

\\

\\

\\d 3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12122/98

CEOG PASS Elimination l

Process:

e Revise CEOG core damage assessment (CDA) 3 demonstrate that existing requirements for post accident i

surveillance may be relaxed to achieve intended objectives in CEOG plants

- Modify H2 calculation procedure

- Eliminate radioisotopic CDA Resultant CDA to be similar in function to proposed W CDA methodology o

Demonstrate that alternate sampling and assessment capabilities at i

CEOG plants are sufficient for post accident surveillance C

1 I

3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEI/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98 l

Historical basis for PASS requirements

--7-1 l

Following TMI-2:

e PASS intended to acquire information supporting emergency response, accident management and accident recovery actions RCS chemistry and containment atmosphere l

parameters e

PASS information to be used for core damage assessment e

Information should be timely and accurate 1

i i

C I

I id 3MBUSTidN ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98 1

• O

s'8 Reasons for CEOG PASS Elimination Why is CEOG Revisiting PASS Relief?

e From 1PE assessments and a decade of SAMG development and implementation, PASS information is not relied upon for accident management in CEOG plants e

Use of PASS is not risk beneficial:

- ALARA impact

- High pressure RCS sample lines poses potential for bypass of radiation

- PASS operation diverts resources away from accident management C

I I

'd 3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12122/98

= +

Reasons for CEOG PASS Elimination (continued) e System maintenance costs are high and rapidly growing:

surveillance, maintenance costs are ~S100K/yr/ plant obsolescence issues increase repair, replacement costs resolution of Y2K issues

> training on complex and obscure procedures e PASS operational problems in CEOG plants :

violations, fines great expense to many utilities (e.g., for one site > 10 million dollars expended in " fixes"/ repairs / re-designs over a 5 year period) drain on plant resources Q

i i

,d 3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98

.----.,,-.m

~

i Assessment of Current PASS Requirements l

In light of almost twenty yearc of operating experience with PASS and development of SAMGs, most PASS requirements are now assessed to be:

duplicative non risk beneficial costly 4

y--.-

,..-v,,--,----,.,.._m

,,.,.,_m_

i Assessment of Current PASS Requirements i

l PASS information is not necessary in responding to i

accidents:

e PASS Measurements are too slow for decision making l.

e Alternate methods to boron sample requirements in EOPs can i,

assure reactivity control in the short term i

neutron flux, rod position and boration design values

{

e Site Emergency Plans can establish EALs on area and site radiation levels, core exit temperatures without using PASS l

e SAMGs utilize containment radiation levels and hydrogen l

concentration measurements to initiate Candidate High Level

{

Actions (CHLAs) independent of PASS l

C k

MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12/ 22/98 d

2

• e s

e-w e v ww - = ews~ge=*--

rswms =-e t-e e-e w sv w w =m-sem "w-=ewwwewg*ww -

• m ee- -

• ww ww, =,e--e

• wee we a ww w www + ++s.'

w g %m-w w ey w y s w ee.

i l

Alternatives to PASS Requirements:

~

j Conclusion

.6 gga%e q

e Use of the PASS is unnecessary since sufficient information is available from fixed l

plant instrumentation and procedures.

i 3MBUSTION ENG!NEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12122/98

1 PASS ELIMIXATION PROJECT I

SCHEDL~LE j

e PASS Elimination is Number 1 CEOG l

l Regulatory Activity for 1999 I

e Pilot Plant: ANO-2 (Y2K) e Schedule:~ Driven by Y2K Joint Application Submittal with ANO-2 lead by end of March 1999 Sixty day NRC review expected following i

4 approval of Wolf Creek Amendment i

i 3MBUSTION ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP NEl/NRC PASS Meeting,12122/98 i..,

~

O Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:

Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director Programs Washington Opc=tions Nuclear Energy institute ABB-Combustion Enginee.ing. Inc.

Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 32n 1776 i Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 l

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities i

Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708

$-