ML17258A658
| ML17258A658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A659 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-06-04, TASK-6-4, TASK-RR LSO5-82-03-088, LSO5-82-3-88, NUDOCS 8203230543 | |
| Download: ML17258A658 (10) | |
Text
March 19, 1982 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82-03-088 ter.
John E. tlaier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Nr. 11aier:
Ol usg; ~8+
4 198' gf{gptgyi
~ic~4<> g
SUBJECT:
ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION Al'lD COl'lTROL ASPECTS OF THE OVERRIDE OF CONTAINl1ENT PURGE VALVE ISOLATION (INCLUDING RESOLUTION OF SEP TOPIC VI-4, CONTAINl1ENT ISOLATION)
R.
E.
GINNA The staff has determined that the scope of review and evaluation performed for multi-plant generic activity B-24 addresses the electrical aspects of SEP Topic VI-4.
Additional electrical review and evaluation is, therefore, not required.
Enclosed is a copy of our revised evaluation of the electrical override portion of generic activity B-24 for Ginna.
This assessment compares your facility as described in Docket No. 50-244, with the criteria currently used by the regulatory staff for presently operating facilities.
Our report replaces that issued by my letter of January 12, 1982 and reflects the infor-mation provided in your letter of tlarch 2, 1981 and your responses to I8IE Bulletin 80-06.
We require that by September 30, 1982, you provide physical features to augment existing administrative controls for each manual ove.rride.
With regard to radiation monitoring, should further reviews of operating plants and/or additional requirements be deemed necessary, the Ginna plant will be included with that operating plant action.
/
sincerely.
e(e'/e~
g~gr
&~','tu<<"'g>+d'e
- (c,y) gp(n<<
~~
t6o <>>
~
~s DennIs N. CrutchfIeld ChIef,/}.W<<')
Operating Reactors Branch No.
5 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated A
- DL GL inas 3/(1I/82 *See previous yellow for additional concurrences, OFFICE)
SUANAME$ cc w/encl sures: SEPB:DL -'See-next age- ---- RScholl:dk /25 82 230543 8203i9 / 0~000244 PDR ADO SEPB:DL SEPB:DL ORB}I}'5:PN JLyons* ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~I~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3/3/82 ~ ~ ~ <I' 0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 2/26/82 3/q82 RECORD COPY RHermann* WRussell* ~ ~ 0 ~I~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ttO ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 10 ~ 0 0 D utchfield USGPO: tII1~5.960
4 4 r ~ V =F4 4 rh 4 rh I I 4 4 I ' I' I 44 ~ rr 4\\ 4 'I~ hl ~ ' ~ 4 4 DP +F I I 4rl t' her- ~ 'IF 4 I I ~, 4 4 4 fh 4'l ~ ~ 44 4 4 AV 'FE" >> I gh r 4 ,kft PV Fhr 'th 4 FV ~ II4 ~ ~ VF ~ ~ ~ F 4'" ll ~ 'h 4 4 ~ 0 $ ~ II ~ Fl I .Sh Vh FP I I
0 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82 Hr. John E. IIaier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Hr. Naier:
SUBJECT:
ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ASPECTS OF THE OVERRIDE OF COHTAINIIENT PURGE VALVE ISOLATION (INCLUDING RESOLUTION OF SEP TOPIC VI>>4, CONTAINMENT ISOLATION) R. E. GINNA The staff has determined that the scope of review and evaluation performed for multi-plant generic activity B-24 addresses the electrical aspects of SEP Topic VI-4. Additional electrical review and evaluation is, therefore, not required. Enclosed is a copy of our revised evaluation of the electrical override portion of generic activity B-24 for Ginna. This assessment compares your facility as described in Docket Ho. 50';;244, with the criteria currently used by the regulatory staff for presently operating facilities. Our report replaces that issued by my letter of January 12, 1981 and reflects the inforot mation provided in your letter of'arch 2, 1981 and your responses to ItIE Bulletin 80-06. We require that you modify the bypass circuitry for engineered safety features such that physical features to augment existing administrat'ive controls are provided for each manual override. With regard to radiation monitoring, should further reviews of operating plants and/or additional requirements be deemed necessary, the Ginna plant will be included with that operating plant action. Sincerely, Dennis N. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing AD:SA:DL GLainas
Enclosures:
- See previous yellow for additional concurrences.
3/ /82 I ~.BKP.B:,l}L."....... RScho11:dk ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~oootttt ~ oto ~ttt ~ 2/25 /82 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 gouttes tt ~ 0 ~ttt ~ 0 agee ~ etot ~ 0 ~ttottte p OATEf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 FF 1C E P ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ eg 0 Me j@r sURNAMEb "--- See mat .SEPB'DL......... WRussell ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ette ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 .3(.LC/.a2;....... ..5KPR'D.I."...,... RMermann ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ..2/N/RZ....... ~0 Co POM 00 ~ 0 ~ 0 JLy ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ 0000 ~ ~tete .3/0 j82......... .OBBg5 'C....... DCrutchfield ~3/0 0 0 ~ 0 /082 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NRG FORM 318 (10.80) NRCM 0240 0 FF ICIAI R ECOR 0 COPY USQPO1 1981-339-990
E 1 ~ 1 I" E' ( ~ 1.1 ( ~ 1 ~ I I I E ~ EI P lhl I r E ~ h ~ 1 1 Pl' h ~. p E 'E E' 1 ~ h ') ~ 1 ~ I ~ ( ( '1 'I p 4 ~ 1 1 hh I, h ~. ~ 1 ~ h/ p ff = ,I ~ h 1 I 'l ~ I ( h((/ P" EE 1 E 1 h
/ Docket Ho. 50-244 LS05-82 M. John E. Naier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Nr. Naier:
SUBJECT:
ELECTRICAL. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ASPECTS OF THE OVERRIDE OF CONTAINMENT PURGE VALVE ISOLATION (INCLUDING RESOLUTION OF SEP TOPIC VI-4, CONTAINMENT ISOLATION) R. E. GINHA The staff has determined that the scope of review and evaluation performed for multi-plant generic activity B-24 addresses the electrical aspects of SEP Topic VI-4. Additional electrical review and evaluation is, therefore, not required. ,Enclosed is a copy of our revised evaluation of the electrical override portion of generic activity. B-24 for Ginna. This assessmi.nt compares your facility as described in Docket No. 50-244, with the criteria currently used by the regulatory staff for presently operating facilities. Our report replaces that issued by my letter of January 12, 1981 and reflects the infor-mation provided in your letter of March 2, 1981 and your responses to ISE Bulletin 80-06. lie require that you mddify the bypass circuitry for engineered safety features such that physical features to augment existing administrative controls are provided for each manual override. If Regulatory Guide 1.141 is approved by the NRC for implementation in its present form, you will be required to upgrade the radiation instrumentation to safety grade. Sincerely,
Enclosures:
As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch Ho. 5 Division of Licensing , AD:SA:DL GLainas 2/ /82 OFFICE) SURNAME$ DATEf ~ e cc w/encl -'--See"heN sures: cfgC"'-"--'"'- S B'dk L'6?......... SEPB:D RHermann SEPB:DL 0 l<Russel 1 2/&&82..........2/..../82.... ORB¹5:PM ORB¹5BC JLyons DCrutchfield Q....$82..........2/..../82........ NRG FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~9.960
4 M 4 4 4 I
Mr. John E. Maier CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.
W. 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 Departme'nt of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York )0047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.,NRC 1503 Lake Road Ontar io, New York 14519 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy'Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town.
of Ontario 107. Ri'dge Road West
- Ontario, New York
'l4519 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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. 'C. 20555 U. S. Environmental. Protection Agency 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 Washington, D. C. 20555 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
l
REVISED SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT GINNA PLANT OVERRIDE OF CONTAINMENT PURGE ISOLATION.AND OTHER ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURE CTUATION SIGNALS INTRODUCTION As a result of Abnormal Occurrence 878-5, the NRC issued a generic letter requesting each licensee to take certain actions. EVALUATION The enclosed revised report (EGG-EA-5723, Rev.
- 2) was prepared for us by EG&G, Idaho, as part of our technical assistance.
program for SEP.
- Also, enclosed is EG&G Report 1183-4204, "Technical Evaluation of the Licensee's
Response
to I&E Bulletin 80-06." These reports provide a technical.evalua-tion of the electrical,, instrumentation and control design aspects of the override of containment purge valves isolation and other engineered safety feature actuation signals and is based upon review of these design aspects against the six NRC criteria provided for the review. The technical evalua-tion concludes that the modifications made by the licensee at the plant have not brought the designs of the engineered safety features into confor-mance with our review criteria. The reports identify several areas in which the present'plant does not ,satisfy the review criteria. The most important design problems are that the radiation monitors have not been demonstrated to satisfy Class 1E requirements and some ESF reset pushbuttons are unguarded. We have reviewed the licensee's justification for not modifying the Con-tainment Spray Additive Tank Discharge valves and find it acceptable on the basis that, following reset actuation, these valves close and that this would likely be the desired posi'tion. Further, the containment spray pumps remain in operation and chemical additives can be reinstated manually if
- required, We have also reviewed the licensee's justification for not modifying the Main Feedwater Isolation and Bypass valves and find it acceptable on the.
basis that once the Feedwater Isolation reset has been actuated, the Feed-water Isolation and Bypass valves will not assume the position called for by their controllers unless the valves are in manual control. Since the plant is riot operated at power levels above 154 with the valves in. manual control, there is little consequence in the feedwater valves reopening. (Reopening of the Feedwater Isolation and Bypass valves may result in the addition of feedwater to a failed steam generator. This condition would occur if the pimp discharge valves fail to close or, fail to remain closed and the condensate booster pumps remain in operation.)
~ ~ 4'e, ~ o CONCLUSION Based upon our review of the consultant's technical evaluations, we conclude that the electrical, instrumentation and control design aspects of the over-ride of engineered safety feature actuation signals are acceptable, except for a lack of adequate physical protection for some of the ESF reset push-buttons. The licensee must modify such pushbuttons to provide protection against inadvertent actuation. >lith rega'rd to radiation monitoring, should further reviews of operating plants and/or additional requirements be deemed necessary, the Ginna plant will be included with that operating plant action.}}