ML17256A653
| ML17256A653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1983 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| LSO5-83-04-072, LSO5-83-4-72, NUDOCS 8305020060 | |
| Download: ML17256A653 (5) | |
Text
April 28, 1983 Docket No. 50-244 l,S05-,83;04-.072 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue.
Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Mr. Maier:
DISTRIBUTION Docket,'RC PDR Local PDR ORB Reading NSIC DCrutchfield HSmith GDick MGrotenhuis OELD ELJordan JMTaylor ACRS (10)
SEPB
SUBJECT:
BLOCKING OF SAFETY INJECTION SIGNAL DURING COOLDOWN R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant During inspection and review of PWR facilities, it was noted that some PWR facilities blocked the Safety Infection System in a manner not con-sistent with the Technical Specificatjons for that facility.
We have completed a review of'll PlJRs and found that there is a question in this regard for your facility which is identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Please respond to the concern identified within 30 days from receipt of this letter.
The, reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB,clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by/
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch P5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page BSOSOVOoaO SS04Z8 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P
PDR D
~
OFFICE JN SURNAME/
DATE$
..K..
Jaj.s 04/
83 DL' 5
...G 04/
/83 DL:OR 8 MGrotenhui.s.
04/g/83 p
5
.DC Co3 f-gael d O4~g@83 NRC FORM 318 u0-80) NRCM 0240 OFF!CIAL R ECOR D COPY USQPO'981~M.960
l
ter. John E. Maier April 28, 1983
'C Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and HacRae 1333 New Hampshire
- Avenue, N.
M.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 Morld Trade Center New York, New York 10047 U. S. Environmental Protection Age'ncy Region II Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C. '0555 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue'ing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Resident Inspector R.
E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.
NRC 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 1'4519 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
. Albany,.New York 12223 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West
- Ontario, New York 14519 Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and.Licensing Board
.V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,Washington, D. C.
20555
0ISCREPEt'CI "S It'ECHNICA'P."CIFICA; IO'"=QUIREYi"-hTS FOR ESF CHAhh""L OPERA" >'. TY Technical Specifications set forth the operability requirements for engineered safety feature actuation (ESF) channels which specify actions which are to be taken when ESF channels are inoperable.
For those plants which use the format of the current Standard Technical Specifications, the operability requirements are stated in terms of defined operating modes.
Thus during some operating modes the operability requirements are not applicable.
For older plants the operability requirements of ESF channels are determined based on the action statements imposed when the minimum operability requirements are not met.
Generally, the action is identified as, either hot shutdown or cold shutdown.
. When an operating bypass is provided which prevents the actuation of ESF systems, the Technical Specifications indicate the conditions under which 'the'nterlock or blocking action takes place.
This precludes a conflict with the operability requirements under conditions where the ESF channel is rendered inoperable due to an operating bypass.
The failure to identify conditions under which safety.
actions are blocked by'the operating bypass, is considered a violation of the operability requirements for that channel.
Thus, in order to preclude such.
conflicts, Technical Specifications should be explicit with regards to identifying the conditions under which operating bypasses will block ESF channels.
While current Standard Technical Specifications identify operating
- bypasses, it has been. found that some Westinghouse plants do not currently identify all operating bypasses under the operability requirements of ESF'channels.
This concern has been identified as multiplant action B-32.
Therefore, a review was conducted of the operability requirements for ESF channels for all licensed Westinghouse plants.
The channels which initiate safety injection on low pressurizer pressure always include an operating bypass to permit plant shut-down.
The channels which sense steam line breaks and acutate safety injection and/or steam line isolation may or may not include a nanually initiated operating bypass.
In some cases the FSAR includes sufficient detail that identifies operating bypasses.
In other cases, the use of the Standard
. Technical Specification format.provides sufficient assurance that operating
. bypasses have been adequately addressed.
Operating bypasses provided to block safety injection may or may not block steam line'isolation where these s'afety actions are initiated by'the same ESF channels..
Since the FSAR's for many of the older plants do not address operating
- bypasses, this revi'ew could not confirm hat the Technical Specifications relfect conditions under which ESF channels may be inoperable due to an operating bypass.
During this review, a number of errors and other problems were identified in the. Technical Specifications for some plants.
The plants identified.in this review should be advised. that the failure to identify conditions under which safety actions are blocked by an operating bypass is considered a violation of the Technical Specification operability requirements when those channels are blocked by an operating bypass.
Licensees.
should be required to propose changes to their Technical Specifications if these problems exist.
Also, for those plants for which other problems have been noted, they should take appropriate 'action to resolve the concerns identified.
The following questions have been raised regarding the Ginna facility technical specifications:
1.
Table 3.5-2 includes a column titled PERMISSABLE BYPASS CONDITIONS.
The entry under this column for item la, Manual SI is, "Primary Pressure less than 2000 psig."
'This appears to be in error.
Items lc, Steam Generator Low Steam Pressure/Loop and ld, Pressurizer Low Pressure indicated no conditions under which these safety actions may be bypassed.
The table should be revised to correctly indicate those safety functions which have a manually initiated operating bypass.
2.
Table 3.5-3 indicates no conditions under which STEAM LINE ISOLATION can be bypassed.
If this is correct no changes are required.