ML17214A179

Informs That Interim Plan to Reduce Blocked Position from 50 to 140 Degrees Acceptable Pending Review of 830715 Rept Re Out of Plane Upstream Elbow.Srp 6.2.4 & Positions 6 & 7 of TMI Action Item II.E.4.2 Closed

ML17214A179
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/27/1983
From:	Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8306140414
Download: ML17214A179 (10)

Text

A p 5}AY 8 7 1983 Docket No. 50-335 i NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 O F F lClAL R ECO R D COPY Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems

& Technology Florida Power

& Light Company P. 0. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408

SUBJECT:

COHPLETION OF REVIEWS OF HPA 8-24 AND NURFG-0737 ITEH II.E.4.2 (POSITIONS 6 AND 7) - ST.

LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO.

1 In our letter of January 25, 1983 we updated our evaluation of the various issues involved with purging and venting of the containment at the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1.

In that letter we also documented completion of the reviews for the electrical override and radiological consequences parts of the review.

Me then indicated that the remaining items needed to close out Hulti-Plant Action Item 8-24 and THI Action Item II.E.4.2 (Positions 6 and 7) would be the sub)ect of a future letter.

This letter constitutes our completion of these reviews.

On February 16, 1983 we sent you a letter under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f) relative to the valve operability part of the review.

In that letter we requested that you advise us of your intentions re-garding purging and venting of containment with large Pratt butterfly type valves at St. Lucie 1.

On Harch 31, 1983 you responded to this request in your letter L-83-203.

In that letter you indicated that you intend to continue operating the large Pratt purge and vent valves in conformance with a modified interim position that permits limited purging with a more conservative limited valve opening angle.

You provided your evaluation which you state demonstrates purge valve operability.

However, you committed to provide by July 15, 1983 a separate report being prepared by the Henry Pratt Company. addressing an out-of-plane upstream elbow.

In the interim you will reduce the blocked position from 50o to 40 This is acceptable pending review of your July 15, 1983 report.

On this basis, the requirements of Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4 or SRP 6.2.4 and positions 6 and 7 of THI Action Item II.E.4.2 are closed.

Depending on the results of the staff evaluation of your forthcoming submittal you may, among other things, be required to consider Tech-

. nical Specification changes.

Me previously sent you sample Technical Specifications in our letter of February 23, 1982.

Since your responses to our February 16, 1983 letter will now require a plant specific review, we will establish a new task for that effort.

r 830bi404i4 830527 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P

PDR SURNAMEc ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~I~\\ ~ $ ~ QQ ~ Q ~I

~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~

DATE$

USQPO 198'I~9 960

I 4 ~

I 9

I ~

E

~ ~ g Clap

-)Fj F

T 4

I 4

1

~ 4 I

4 S-f 4 ~

~f tt

~

4 Fl I

4

~ 4 9

,+9 I'

1 ~

4

~ p e 4 '4 4 9 F

4 '

94 "ee" 1

4'4 9*.

4 94

~

I" 4

4

%4 4

~

9 4

~"

~

I 4,

~ P 9

- ~

FP

,FI 9

~

" /

4' 4

p P 4'

Dr. Robert E. Uhrig 2

Our Safety Evaluation concerning 0TNI Action Item II.E.4.2(Positions (I

6 and 7) is enclosed.

He have closed out the generic THI Action Item.

Me will consider the question of compliance with BTP CSB 6-4 and'/or SRP 6.2.4 as part of our refiew of your July 1983 submittal.

,fel If you have any questions, contact D. Sel'Is (301-.,492-9735)(;

the Project Hanager.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation cc:

See next Ipage Robert A. Clark, Ch >ef Operating Reactors Branch ¹3 Division of Licensing DI IBUTION ocket File Local PDR ORB ¹3 Rdg D.Eisenhut JHeltemes RAClark PKreutzer (3)

OELD NSIC E.L. Jordan J.M.Taylor (1)

ACRS (10)

DSells Gray File EReeves MFiel ds

g. Rdrga'7-Qg~+A

• see previous concurrence page OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATE$

ORB¹3:DL PKt>

er+

3/9/835/.+

~ ~I~I~ 11 ~ ee ~ e ~

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 ORB¹ D

~P.$.....,. 4...

.3I...../8.3..., X~

RAG:.D).

3(9(83@

/3~i>

~ ~

~

~

~

Glaze.....,...

./8,.l/8.3..........

OFF lC IAL R ECOR D CO PY USGPO1 1981~r980

N, V

~

~

0 DISTRIBUTION Docket File Local PDR ORB g3 Rdg D.Eisenhut JHeltemes RAClark PKreutzer (3)

OELD NSIC E.L. Jordan J.M.Taylor (1)

ACRS (10)

DSells Gray File C gC C'~$

Docket No.60-335 In our letter of Jan ry 25, 1983'e updated our evaluation of the various issues involv with purging and venting of the containment at the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1.

In that letter we also documented completion of the review for the electrical override and radiological

'consequences parts of the eview.

Me then indicated that the remaining items needed to close out t lti-Plant Action Item B-24 and THI Action Item II.E.4.2 (Positions 6 a d 7) would be the subject of a future letter.

This letter constitu es our completion of these reviews.

On February 16, 1983 we sent yo a letter under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.64(f) relative to the 3 lve operability part of the review.

In the letter we requested that yo advise us of;your intentions re-garding purging and venting of cont inment with large Pratt butterfly type valves at St. Lucie 1.

Dependi g on your response to this letter, you may, among other things, be required to consider Technical Specifi-cation changes, such as performance of leakage integrity tests.

In our letter of February 23.

1982 we sent ou sample technical specifi-

cations, but as of this date your applica ion has not been received.

Since your response to our February 16, 19 3 letter will be in the nature of Unit 1 plant specific information a specific review task, will be established for that effort.g Our Safety Evaluation concerning completion of THI Action Item II.E.4.2 (Positions 6 and 7) is enclosed.

Sincerely, Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems

& Technology Florida Power

& Light Company P. 0. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Dea 0

Uhrig.

Pf. +Mt.OS

SUBJECT:

CONPLE ON OF REVIEWS OF HPA B-24 AND NUREG-0737 ITB< II.E.4.2 (POSITIO S 6 AND 7) ST.

LUCIE PLANT, UNIT 1.

Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 83 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

-- Safety-Kv OFFICE/

SURNAME/

cc:

See DATE0

..QBBE3.:

PKreu

........e...t..r....

~ ~

o

~ ~

oo ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

]gaotoi Ogo

~ oooooo ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooo ~ o ~ o ~ o ~

ext page

...O l/9I......

...9... s.;.44...

..3...L8.3........

..QBBP3.:DL.....

..HAGlark........

~ ~ ~ o /o o o ~ o lo8 o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~

3 yg8 /,! DL.

~ggzui'F

~

o ~ o ~ o

~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~

~ ~ ~

NRG FORM 018 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY USOPO: 1981~990

4 C

~ x.

Y

,A

'I

Florida Power 8 Light Company

~ I CC:

Harold F. Reis, Esquire Lowenstein,

Newman, Reis 8 Alexrad 1025 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Norman A. Coll, Esquire McCarthy, Steel, Hector 8 Davis 14th Floor, First National Bank Building Miami Florida 33131 Mr. Jack Schreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.N.R.C.

7900 S.

A1A Jensen Beach, Florida 33457 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 345 Courtland Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.

7910 Woodmont Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Office of Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street; Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 State Planning and Develpment Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION RELATED TO PURGE

& VENT VALVE ISOLATION DEPENDABILITY NUREG-0737 ITEM II. E.4.2.

6&7 FLORIDA POWER

& LIGHT COMPANY ST.

LUCIE PLANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 INTRODUCTION As a consequence of the accident at TMI-2, implementation of a number of new requirements was recommended for operating reactors.

These new requirements are described in NUREG-0737, "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,"

November 1980.

The staff requested licensees to verify that these TMI action plan requirements have been met.

This review provides an evaluation of the response to Action Plan Item II.E.4.2, positions 6

& 7 by Florida Power

& Light Company (FPL).

Discussion and Evaluation Position 6 requires that containment purge/vent isolation valves that do not satisfy the operability criteria set forth in Branch'Techncial Position CSB 6-4 or the Staff Interim Position of October 23,

1979, must be sealed closed during operating conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4, as detined in SRP 6.2.4, item II.6.f (NUREG-0880).

These valves must be verified closed at least every 31 days.

Sealed-closed isolation valves may be closed manual

valves, closed remote-manual valves, and closed automatic valves which remain closed after a

loss-of-coolant accident.

Sealed-closed purge isolation valves should be under administrative control to assure that they cannot be inadvert-ently opened.

Administrative control includes mechanical devices to seal or lock the valve closed or to prevent power from being supplied to the valve operator.

Key-locked switches in the control room are also acceptable administrative control devices to assure that the purge/

vent valves are not inadvertently opened.

• - Checking the valve position light in the control room every 31 days is an acceptable method for verifying that the purge valves are closed.

Position 7 requires that containment purge/vent isolation valves must close on a high radiation signal.

The radiation monitor(s) that provide the high radiation signal to purge/vent isolation valves must sense primary containment atomosphere.

However, the location of the monitor does not have to be inside primary containment, but can be downstream of the purge exhaust valves or in a separate system that directs primary containment atmosphere to radiation monitors located outside containment and then exhausts the air back into containment.

For St. Lucie 1, the radiation detectors are located on the wall in-side containment (See Section 7.3.2.3.2 of the updated FSAR).

The staff has determined that any purge/vent isolation valves sealed closed during plant operating modes 1 through 4, in accordance with SRP 6.2.4, Item II.6.f (NUREG-0800) satisfy the requirements of Position 7 without a radiation closure signal since these valves are not expected to be open during an accident.

Purge/vent lines that are very small and that are used very infrequently also satisfy the require-ments of Position 7 without a radiation closure signal, since the amount of containment atomsphere that can be released to the environment is small and since these valves are highly reliable and also unlikely to open if an accident releasing'adiation should occur.

Those plants. that elect to seal closed the purge/vent valves to meet the provisions of II.E.4.2(657) will be required to identify this operational restriction in the plant Technical Specifications.

In a letter of March 31, 1983 FPSL provided an additional evaluation that they state demonstrates purge valve operability and further, that they in-tend to continue operating the large Pratt purge and vent valves in confor-mance with a modified interim position that permits limited purging with a more conservative, limited valve opening angle.

FP&L also committed to

provide, by July 15, 1'983 a separate report being prepared by the Henry Pratt Company addressing an out-of-plane upstream elbow.

In the interim, FPSL will reduce the blocked position from 50 to 40o.

This is acceptable to the staff pending a review of the Jul'y 15, 1983 report.

Conclusion On the basis of the staff review of FPEL's response to the NRC staff letter of February 16, 1983, the requirements of TMI Action'tem II.E.4.2, Positions 6 and 7, is considered closed.

Principal Contributors:

M. Fields D. Sells

t P,