ML17340A098

Forwards Questions Re Purge Valve Instrument & Control Issue.Requests Response within 60 Days

ML17340A098
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/28/1980
From:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8008150292
Download: ML17340A098 (10)

Text

ES S

MIlLliiloiliÃ~~!t.l <t5 Nil Docket Nos.

50-250'nd 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology.

Flor'ida Power and Light. Company Post Office Box 529100 Miami, F1orida 33152

Dear Dr. Uhrtg:

DISTRIBUTIP Docket File 50-250 251 NRC PDR'ocal PDR.

TERA NISC NRR Reading ORBl Reading T.Novak.

S.

Varga M. Grotenhuis C.Parrish ISE (3)

Attorney, OELD J. Olshinski J.

Heltemes J. T. Beard Me are currently reviewing the containment ventilation isolation for the Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.

3 and 4.

In order to complete our review we need the answers to the questions in Enclosure 1 to this letter.

In addition we are also enclosing criteria, for your information, which we are using in our review.

Please respond to these questions within 60 days of the receipt of this 1'etter.

Sincerely,

~~~4 g$p<44 V>

~~>iV P,~<M~

Enclosure:

questions Review Criteria cc:

w/enclosure See next page Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing 0 FFIC E2$

gY sURNAME DATE/

DL:ORB1 MGrotenhuis 07/Zi)/80:jb DL' a

/80

~

D

~ P TM 07/

/80 NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240 CU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289.389

D

~

R

r

~~

~~

~ re@ REco c+

~o Cy 4v 0

I ~

o

.u c Yr+

UNITED STATES

'NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.'C. 20555 July 28, 1980 Docket Nos

. 50-250 and 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power and.'I ight Company Post Office Box 529100 t~iiami, Florida 33152 Cear.Dr. Uhrig:

Me are currently reviewing the containment ventilation isolation for the Turkey.Point Plant, Unit Nos.

3 and 4.

In order to complete our review we need the answers. to the questions in Enclosure 1 to this letter.

In addition we are also enclosing criteria, for your information, which we are using in our review.

Please respond to these questions within 60 days of the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

guestions/Review Criteria cc:

w/enclosure See next page

Ib

(

Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power and Light Company 2 -

July 28, 1980 CC:

Mr. Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman,, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue.

N-W.

'Suite 1214 Washington, D.

C.

20036 Environmental and Urban Affairs Library Flori da International University Miami, Florida 33199 Mr. Norman A. Coll, Esquire

Steel, Hector and Davi s

-1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Henry Yaeger, Plant Manager Turkey Point Plant Florida Power and Light Company P. 0.

Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland 'Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Administrator Dep'artment of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl'orida

~ 32301

'Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Post Office Box 971277 quail Hei'ghts Station Miami, Florida 33197

L'

~,

Il II

QUESTIONS FOR TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POiKR PLANT FOR THE PURGE VALVE INSTRPifEilT AND CONTROL ISSUE 1.

What is the memory element in the CVI control circuit shown on FPL drawing 5610-T-LI?

Is it an MG-6 relay?

Shown on what, drawing?

Please send drawing.

Also,,please send drawings 5610-E-25, sheet 59, E-389, and lesson 45.

i&at is the form of switch QRSO?

hhmentary?

Key lock?

2.

1&at is the function of the 86 "lock out relays" ?

Do they have memory function?

Shown on what drawing?

Send drawing if not 5610-E-28, sheet 31G. If they have memory function, how are they reset?

3.

Are the CVI radiation monitors R3-11 and.R3-12 qualified as, safety grade?

If not, justi y their use in a function required to.protect public health and safety.

4.

Are the NG-6 relays qualified as safety grade (class 1E)?

(Used in other engineered safety features circuits'?)

5.

Is there a system level (containment ventilation isolation) annuncia-tion and indication of the overridden status of an initiating signal (radiation monitor or safety injection)?

6.

Are the safeguard actuation systems shown on FPL drawing 5610-T-LI, sheet 11 redundant?

Are all channels redundant, including contain-ment radiation monitors?

REYI El< CRITERIA The primary intent of this evaluation is to determine that the following requirements are met for the safety signals to all ESF equipment, (I}

Criterion no. I!n keeping with the requirements of GDC 55 and 56 [Ref.

3g

, the overriding* of one type of safety actuation signal (e.g.,

radiation) should not cau'se the blocking of any, other type of safety actuation signal (e.g.,

pressure) for those valves that have no function besides containment isolation.

(2)

Criterion no.

2--Sufficient physical features

.(e.g.,

keylock switches) are ta be provided to facilitate adequate qdministrative controls.

(3}

Criterion no.

3The system-level annunciation of

~

the

~ overridden status should be provided for every safety system impacted wi en any override is active (see R.G. 1.47).

Incidental to this

review, the following additional NRC staff design criteria were used in the evaluation:

(I}

Criterion no.

4Diverse signals should be pro-vided to initiate isolation of the containment ventilation system.

Specifically, containment

'igh radiation,

safety, injection actuation, and containment high pressure (where containment hi,gh pressure is not a

portion of safety injection actuation) should automatically initiate CYI.

(2)

Criterion no.

5--The instrunentation and control systems provided to initiate ESF should be de-signed and qualified as safety-grade equipment.

I g

fi i

gi t

i i y f i

hi 1 ti Override:

The signal is still present, and it is blocked in order to perform a function contrary to the signal.

3

~ ~

~I I... ~

.(3)

Criter>on no.

6--The. overriding or resetting of the ESF actuation signal should not cause any valve, or damper to change posit:ion.

Criterion 6

in this review applies primarily to related ESF systems because implementation of this criterion for containment isolation, systems wi;1;1 be reviewed by the Lessons Learned Task !Force, based'n the recomuendations in NUREG

0578, Section

2. 1.4 I.Ref. 4j'.

Automatic valve repositioning upon.reset may be acceptable when containment isolation is not involved; consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis.

Accept-ability would be dependent upon system function, design. intent, and suit-able operating procedures.

l~

0 0

j.V