ML17193A351
| ML17193A351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1980 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006260076 | |
| Download: ML17193A351 (10) | |
Text
...
~*
' REGULIIRV UOC~H HlE COPY
~...
... DISTRIBUTION - -
. May 30, l 9BO *
- Docket Fil.es ~1251.
- N_RC.PDRs
- ~
Docket Nos. 50*250
- and 50-251
-Loca.l PDR
- .j*.
Dr. Robert E *. Uhr1 g *. Vt_c::e Pres f dent *
'Ad.vanced Systems* and Techhology Fl or1da.POwer and 11 ght Company Post Office Box 529100.
- Mtarn1 t: F1 orfda 33152
Dear Dr. Uhrfg:
- TERA
- NSIC NRR Readin.g
- oRBl.Reading D. E_i senhut
- L *Novak *
. S. Varga:
-* M. Grotenhuis
- .. C.Parrish I-&E( 3).
_...
- _: '.
- Aftorn~y. OELD We have *Completed our. review. and. -evahiation 9f your.respon.se *dat~d December 20 *.,1979 to the NRC Requ1*remi;?hts for *AudHary Feedwate*r Systems at the Turkey. Point Plant Untt Nos. 3 and 4.dated October 16. 1979.
Our evaluation is enclosed w1th tMs-1etter.
We have found aJ,- :Your res'ponses* acc*eptable with_ the exceptfon of GS*4,.additfonal.short term recommendatfo,n _no~ 2, and GL-3*.
We note,
'.)1pwever, that: your response to* additional *short t_erm recommendatfon no. 2.
was based' on our earlier reqi.t1r~m-ent of ~- 72 _hour* endurance test. for AFW _pumps_.
It f s our understanding tha~ you.are now eonformfog to the revision *to recommendation no~ 2* *... -
Pl~ase-respond t~ ou.r cp~ents on GS.. 4.ah*d_ GL~3 -and conffr~ your conformance
':t:cr:the, revfsfon to.recormnendation. 2 (copy enclosed) within 45-days.* These open items.must be r~solved1n a,ffianner.acceptable to_ the St_aff before the Auxil fary _ Feedwater Systems ~afety Eva 1 ua~ion Re pc:> rt can. be 1 ssued.
.. *~
s1n;eerely. -
-Original signed by:
s,.A. Varga..
- Stev~n A. : Varga** Chf ef *
- . Operat 1ng Reactors Branch_ bl*_
. D1vfsion.of. tfcensfng
Enclosures:
1 ~
Aux11 fary
- Feedw_ater System Reliabfl ity *
- Evaluation
- 2~ Revis ion to Recommetidati*on 'No. 2 of-
.. -Addf.t1ona1 Short Term. Recommendatfons cc: w/enc1osure$.
See nex pa'ge
_.*/)
<_/[,*. I/.
/'
80 0626 0 0 76.
<~i~
~****-** -..--*-.-..
. :.. <OFFICE,-. g_~ ;9.R~].
...*:'.. ! _;_. ;. __..
- _*: ~ ;'.....
- ._...... : ***.-:~:/:. *:........,:.,.** :.*..... :. *............_. *.. _;.'.,... :.*.*
.SURNAME
._-_*_--~.-.s_./r.*o
.. _fA*
- .. t.e.. :.. o.~.J~.:...
- -~a ~I;.--*-~._:* __ *.:**_.-_-._---....... :._.... ~",:.'......'.:-<::;...',, __ :.*.. _::.;:.*.... _:............ *.!*.. :.'._._:.,,.. *-*._:....... :...,.... -,."*;.
~ y
....,.. ; '"'*.". ;.. ~.. *~.. *:. :........ : ;.. ~-. :....... *... -.... -~ *',:.... -:~.. *... ~. -~ *-:... :... *... :..... _. ;.... ':... *
. -~*.......... ~....
,.. QAT:E_
- ., '.,~(:.al)ttM 3'l'll'(9*7'6)~1'Hi~M'0l?4'0 *.. --*...:. *_.,>:. ".. _.. *,;' ***y.s:J;OVERNMENi:* PRINTING.. 0FFICE*:-L97.9*289-.369.".: *
- UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr. Uhrig:
May 30, 1980 We have completed our review and evaluation of your response dated December 20, 1979 to the NRC Requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater Systems at the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos. 3 and 4.dated October 16, 1979.
Our evaluation is enclosed with this letter.
l~e have found al 1 your responses acceptable with the exception of GS-4, additional short term recommendation no. 2, a*nd GL-3.
We note, however, that your response.to additional short tenn recommendation no. 2 was based on our earlier requirement of a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> endurance test for AFW pumps.
It is our understanding that you are now conforming to the revision to recommendation no. 2.
Pl ease respond to our comments on GS-4 and GL-3 and confirm your conformanc~
to::the revision to recommendation 2 (copy enclosed} within 45 days. These open items must be resolved in a manner acceptable to the Staff before..
the Auxiliary Feedwater Systems Safety Evaluation Report can be issued.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
- 1. Auxiliary Feedwater System Reliability Evaluation
- 2.
Revision to Recotnmendation No. 2 of Additional Short Term Recommendations cc: w/enclosures See next page
- h. #1
Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power and Light Co111>any cc:
Mr. Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 *connecticut Avenue, N.W.
- suite 1214 Washington, o. c.. 20036 Environmental and Urban Affairs Library Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199 Mr. Norman A. Coll, Esquire*
Steel, Hector and Davis*
1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Henry Yaeger, Plant Manager Turkey Point Plant Florida Power and Light Co111>any P. O. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Admi ni st rat or Department of Environmental Regulation*
Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Post Office Box 971277 Quail Heights Station Miami; Florida 33197
- ~--*-~**
May 30, 1980
Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Auxiliary Feedwater System Reliability Evaluation A.
Short Term Recommendations
- 1.
Recommendation GS-1 The response is acceptable. The licensee has agreed to propose an amend-ment to the Technical Specification to enhance the current specifications covering.auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pumps.
\\.
- 2.
Recommendation GS-2
.The licensee's response is acceptable.
The AFW system operability is verified on a monthly basis in accordance with Technical Specification 4.10.
Valves that could affect AFW flow are locked open and their posi-tions. are verified monthly by procedure. However, the steam admission, va 1 ves to the AFW pump turbine are part of the AFW control system and cannot be locked open because that could activate the AFW system (also refer to item C(l} below).
The steam pressure control valves, located between the steam admission valves andthe AfW.pump turbines, cannot be locked in any position because they are part of the AFW control system.
The operability of these valves is tested. monthly in compliance with i:ech Spec 4.10. The feedwater regulator valves are presently controlled by operator action from
. the control room.
In order to provide fully automatic flow initiation, the licensee has agreed to modify the operation of these valves.
The valves will be automatically opened to* a predetermined position using control grade ~omponents. This method of controlling the AFW system discharge valves, meeting safety grade requirements9 will be implemented by January 1981 *
- ---~- -------- ---*--------*
- 3.
Recommendation GS-4
- The licensee's response is unacceptable. The licensee's AP~ system Tech-nica 1 Specifications do not provide adequate protection for the auxiliary feedwater pump from a low condensate storag.e tank level.
The existing specification allows 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of operation below the minimum volume of 185,000 gallons before corrective action is necessary.
Since the AFW
- system does not have a backup emergency water supply available to the AFW pumps, this is unacceptable.
We require that changes to the Tech Specs be proposed to allow only 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of operation when below the minimum volume of 185,000 gallons. Also revision to the specifications should be proposed to cover the case where the AFW system could not operate due to low* level in the CST's or the CST's are unavailable for other reasons.
For this case the. reactor(s) should be brought to hot shutdC1.t1n condition within one hour and placed in cold shutdown within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.. These changes to the specifications are consistent with the Westi'nghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
- 4.
Recommendation GS-5 The 1 i censee 's response is acceptab 1 e. The as-bu i1 t AFW system is capab 1 e of providing required flow for at least two hours from one AFW train independent of any AC power source after AFW initiation.
No manual
- operati6n is required upon Joss of AC power because the steam control and AF.{ discharge control system have a nitrogen backup.
Service water used for cooling the turbine driven pumps lube oil is supplied by gravity feed.
The licensee is committed to establish procedures to describe how to
\\
assure at least two hour supply of lube oil cooling water in the event of loss of all AC power.
The licensee also proposed to install a sound
~owered ph.one. 1 ink from the AFW pumps to the control room.
The modifi ca-tfon is planned for completion by January 1981.
In conjunction with this modification. DC lighting will also be installed at the AFW pump location.
- 5. Recommendation GS-6 The respanse is acceptable. The licensee has agreed to propose an amend-ment t? the Tech Spec to enhance the current specifications covering AR4 system surveillance.
Independent valve position verification by a second operator will also be incorporated into the appropriate procedure(s}.
- 6.
Reco1TJTiendation GS-7 The licensee's response is acceptable (also refer to item A(2} above).
B.
Additional Short Tenn Recormiendations I*
- 1.
Primary AFW Source Low Level Alann The licensee's response is acceptable. Redundant level indications and low le.vel alarms for the AF\\i primart water supply are provided in the
- control room.
The low level alann set point is adjusted to allow at least 20 minutes for operator action, assuming the largest capacity AFW pump is operating.
- 2.
AF.W Pump Endurance Test The licensee's response is unacceptable.
We will require the licensee to perfonn an endurance test and to prov1de ti::st information and results in accordance *w; th the revised Additional Short Term Reconmendation No. 2 attached.
~-. - ---*
- 3. Indication of AFW Flow to the Steam Generator The licensee's response fs acceptable. The licensee is committed to pro-vide safety grade indication of AFW flow to the steam generator by January 1981.
- 4.
AFW System Availability During Periodic Surveillance Testing The 11censee's response is acceptable. The licensee has agreed to propos.e a Tech Spec amendment to enhance the current speci ff cation on AFW system surveillance-test.
C.
Long Tenn Generic Recommendations
- 1. Recommendation GL-3 The licensee's response is unacceptable. The plant's AFW system operability cannot be assured in the event of loss of AC power since these steam admis-sion valves to the steam turbine cannot be locked open and yet depend on AC power to operate.
We require that the AFW system be capable of automatically initiating at-least one AFW train and maintain its operability for a minimum period of two.hours without any AC power, otherwise a safety gtade DC power source should be provided for actuation of these steam admission valve:;.
Conversion of DC power to AC power is acceptable.
- 2. Additional Long Tenn RecolTITiendation 3 The licensee's response is acceptable. The licensee is currently evaluating po_stulated pipe break accident occurring in the single flow path portion of the AFtq pump discharge or turbine steam supply line.
He has agreed to efther ('t} detennine any AFW system modifications or procedures.necessary to detect and isolate the break and direct the required AFW flow to the steam generators before they boil dry, or (ii) describe how the plant can be safely shut down using other available systems.
Implementation of either one of the above is scheduled by January 1981.
- 3. Additiona 1 Long Tenn Reconmendation 4 The response.is acceptable.
The licensee has agreed to modify the lube
.ofl cooling system to provide cooling water for Af1i pump lube oil from the discharge of the AFW pumps.
The modification is scheduled for coi:npletion
- by January 1981. **
--- 7""
Revision tc ~eco;:::::.~)~a~ion ~.*2 cf "~::~i~r.al Sh~rt i:~~
Recor.imenda-t ions" Regarefog At:l'i1 iary Fee~... -c-:.~:-
Fffti-.p £r.dur2r1::e iest The licensee should perfo~ an endurance test on ail Ar~ syst~~- pu~?S. The t.est should continue for at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> aft.er achieving the following tes*t conditions:
- Pump/driver operating.at rated speed and Pump developing rated discharge pressure and flow or some higher pressure at a reduced flow but not e:tceeding the pump vendor's maximum permitted discharge pressure v.. al ue for a 48-hour test For turbine drivers, steam temperature should be as close to norrr.al operating steam temperature as practicable but in no case should the temperat~re be less than 400'F.
Following the 48-hour pump run, the pumps should be shut down and allowed to cool down until pump temperatures reduce u, within 20°F of their values at the start of the 48-hour test and at least 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> ~ave elapsed.
Following the cool down, the pumps should be restarted and run for one hour.
Test acceptance criteria should inc1ude de...-onstrating that the 'pumps rerr.ain withiri desi';~ limit~ with respect to ber.:-~~;!bearing oil tempera-tures and vibration and that ambient pump room conditions (temperature, humidity) do not exceed environmental qualification limits for safety-relatad equipment* in the l"'OOm.
The 1 icensee should provide a surrrnary of the cc:.d-tt~ons and results of the te:sts.
The su:rr..'"ry s~ou1 d in::l ude the to:!or.ir:g;
- }.; ':-:*~ ef.:~scri p:ic'.'!
of the test mcth~c (inc7ud1ng f1ow scne:..at1c d7~((&2n) and how the test
- I I
I
. I
- 1otas instrumented (i.e.,.,,,.r.ere and how b::rfo; te:::;petatures were measured).
- 2) A di.scussion of how the test conditions (;>:.ia:p flow, head, -~peed and steam temperature) compare to design operating conditions.
- 3) P1ots of bearing/bearing oil temperature vs. time for e3ch b~~ring of each APW pump/driver demonstrating that temperature design limits were not exceeded.
- 4) A plot of pump room ambient te.-;:perature and humidity vs.*
time demonstrating that the pump room aru~ient conditions do.not exceed environmental qualification 1imits for safety-related equipment in the room.
S)
A statement confinning that the p:.i~p vibration did not exceed allowable limits during tests.
/
I I I I
' I i I j
I I I
i j
I I