ML19220B999
| ML19220B999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1976 |
| From: | Silver H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904280048 | |
| Download: ML19220B999 (19) | |
Text
4
~
s k /b } W. n u On 0. ;..;
ECCPET ':0-50-322 APPLICK:T:
"etrosoli tan Edison F.1CILITY :
Three File Island L' nit 2 SL?"4RY CF MEETI';G rJ1 OPEf! ITE"S Representatives of the apolicant anc his architect / engineer ret with th-
'IRC staff on Decer er 18,107: to discuss varicus cren itens Mich hav' t een identified in the reviet of the TSAR. These are in the araas of electrical and instrtrentation systens, cer.tainnant systems, and censid-eration of failure of -cderata eneroy lines. Features of the discussien are outlined below.
Instrumentation and Con _ trol and Electrical _Syste.s Tne attached listing entitled " Items of Concern for Three Mile Island Unit No. 2' was exclained and discussed. Sinnificara conrants and agreerents are noted below. All responses ara cresent1/ cc"eduled for January 20,197c exce::t whero noted othentise.
_Itre 1 Apolicant will rasocndt no ma.Jor excections expected.
Ltea. 2 Pcssible methcds of testing, other than in situ, vera discussed. The a::clicant agreed to provide detailed technical justification for ary exceptions.
Iten 3 The staff will provide its position in tne near futura.
Iten 4 The acclicant will correct the incensistency (FSAP. is incorrect}
I tem 5 A;:elicant will crnvide clar1*ication.
orric s >
summame >
}
.a, Form AEC 318 (Rev. 3-53) AECM 0240
- u. s. sovsm msnv poinvino oprics: vera.ame.ies 7904280098'
~
- 2 It-~ E 4.1r t wnts for diversity were axplainad.
Itam 7 The apolicant will provide additional infomatier en the 'no-braat s. -i tch.
Item 8 The acplicant will provide additional infomation descrihing the current
, nanual switchever, including time frames,1ccation of equicecnt. etc.
Item 9 2Plicant will evaluate and providc additioral ir#cmaf ca.
Itea 10 The SER v:111 cover testing to be cerfored by ver. dor.
Item 11 The a::plicant will provide justification for instrtrentation inside containment, and additional infomation confimir.g the suiteilit" of ECP ecuiement cutside contair. ment exoosed for extended 'ericds to conditions per table 3.11-1 of the FSAR.
1+2m 12 Acolicant will document tests perferred.
Item 13 Concems will be addressed by the arolicant.
Iten 14 The applicant will crovMe a "rcad man'* for typical 4160 V ard 480 V ccr.1penents.
Itam 15 The arolicant will crovide detailed schematics fer diesel ger.erater-trips and for the diesel generator auto load sequencer initialino contacts.
omes
- k 5
47
-, 4, ev ana me s h Dats %
\\ Forsa E313 (Rav. 9-53) AZCM 0240
'N u. s. eovannusur rosatsme orrocsa tet4.oss-see
i tw. U The applicant will review previous res;:enses and arend as requirad.
Item 17 This item will :e revieued during the site visit.
Iten 13 The acclicant will review drawings submittad and revise as required and will furnish a master index of all electrical drawinas. The crawing review was discussede including where and how this could best be accomplished, and unich systcms will te reviewed.
Cantainrent Svster.s In discussing the subccrpartment analysis, tne apolicant noted tne shield plugs have been deleted and that shadow shields will Le utilized instead.
The detail design has not been completed, but design paramters current.
used will ce adhered to. The applicant's inputs will be submitted verv shortly and the model will be verified generically.
If we concur witn these incuts and model, we will procaed with our independent analysis.
b'ith regard to containment purging, tne applicant suggested they may precosed purging only when the activity levels are below some low level.
This tech spec requirement may Le only tem orary until the need for purging in Unit 2 is clarified, ilRC indicated we would consider this approach if adequate explanation and justification is presented.
"ocerate Enercy Lines The applicant will revise their previcus response to include a reviev of tne effect of failure of moderate energy lines based on a general survey of the plant.
Parley Silver, Project Panager Licht Water Reactors Branch '!o. 2 Division of Project "anagarent Attachmen ts:
Items of Ccncern for Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 Tooical Report Evaluation Attendance List omes >
i~
4 e i-summans *
- ^
er.tx >
Forma AEC lls (Rev.9 53) AzcM 0240
- u. s. movs mausa? ***.mme omesi s on.sse.s ee
-.,,e..
,7.r-c
'; C
'-i~.T ED DErE"r:ge 13, 1975
'IE C Parley Silver Frank Ashe Peter Hearn D. Shum W. Pasedag J. Shartaker 5_.2 A. F. Zallnick GrCSC G. '.!allace D. H. Rerpert
.L. C. Lanese orwie s >
I:
4 <? O te
..,so summams k oars
- Fom E313 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 W u s. eovannummy pairnae oretes: e eve.ese see
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON W ASHIN GTON. D.
C.
20555 January 9,1976 DOCXET N0:
50-320 APPLICANT:
Metropolitan Edison FACILITY:
Three Mile Island Unit 2
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON OPEN ITEMS Representatives of the applicant and his architect / engineer met with the NRC staff on December 18, 1975 to discuss various open items which have been identified in the review of the FSAR. These are in the areas of electrical and instrumentation systems, containment systems, and consid-eration of failure of moderate energy lines. Features of the discussion are outlined below.
Instrumentation and Control and Electrical Systems The attached listing entitled " Items of Concern for Three Mile Island Unit No. 2" was explained and discussed. Significant comments and agreements are noted below. All responses are presently scheduled for January 20, 1976 except where noted otherwise.
I tem 1 Applicant will respond; no major exceptions expected.
Item 2 Possible methods of testing, other than in situ, were discussed. The applicant agreed to provice detailed technical justification for any exceptions.
Item 3 The staff will provide its position in the near future.
Item 4 The applicant will correct the inconsistency (FSAR is incorrect).
Item 5 Applicant will provide clarification.
~
8b 127
Item 6 Requirements for diversity were explained.
Item 7 The applicant will provide additional information on the "no-break" switch.
Item 8 The applicant will provide additional information describing the current manual switchover, including time frames, location of equipment, etc.
Item 9 Applicant will evaluate and provide additional information.
Item 10 The SER will cover testing to be performed by vendor.
Item 11 The applicant will provide justification for instrumentation inside containment, and additional information confirming the suitability of 80P equipment outside containment exposed for extended periods to conditions per table 3.11-1 of the FSAR.
Item 12 Applicant will document tests performed.
Item 13 Concerns will te addressed by the applicant.
Item 14 The applicant will provide a " road map" for typical 4160 V and 480 V components.
Item 15 The applicant will provide detailed schematics for diesel generator trips and for the diesel generator auto load sequencer initialing contacts.
SG 228
. Item 16 The apr licant will review previous responses and amend as required.
Item 17 This item will be reviewed during the site visit.
Item 18 The applicant will re/iew drawings submitted and revise as required and will furnish a master index of all electrical drawings. The drawing review was discussed, including where and row this could best be accomplished, and which systems will be raviewed.
Containment Systems In discussing the subcompartment analysis, the applicant noted the shield plugs have been deleted and that shadow shields will be utilized instead.
The detail
.ign has not been completed, but design parameters currently used wili ce adhered to.
The applicant's inputs will be submitted very shortly and the model will be verified generically.
If we concur with these inputs and model, we will proceed with our indapendent analysis.
With regard to containment purging, the applicant suggested they may proposed purging only when the activity levels are below some icw level.
This tech spec requirement may be only temporary until the need for purging in Unit 2 is clarified. NRC indicated we would consider this approach i f adequate explanation and justification is presG7ted.
Mod 9 rate Enercy Lines The applicant will revise their previous response to include a reviw of the effect of failure of moderate energy lines based on a general survey of the plant.
/
w Harley Mlver, Project Manager Light W ter Reactors Branch No. 2 Divis n of Project Management Attachments :
Items of Concern for Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 Topical Report Evaluation Attendance List 85 129
ATTENDAMCE LIST NRC - MET ED DECEMBER 18, 1975 NRC Harley Silver Frank Ashe Peter Hearn D. Shum W. Pasedag J. Shappaker B&R A. F. Zallnick GPUSC G. Wallace D. H. Reppert L. C. Lanese SS 130
F 9
4 PRE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ITEMS OF CONCERN FOR THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 240. 2 A.
INSTRUMENTATION,_ CONTROL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Ites 1 Conformance to the Interface Criteria resulting from the completed Generic Review of BAW-10003 for the as-installed RPS equipment.
Statement of Concern Acceptability of referencing B&W 10003 for RPS equipment qualification.
Recuired Action by Aeolicant With regard to this concern we request that you respond to each of the items under part 6 of dhe enclosed Topical Report Evaluation for 3AW-10003.
Where exceptions are noted detailed justification should be provided.
Item 2 Acceptability of the present Response Time Testing Program.
Reqq, red Action by Applicant d
The present cesponse ti=e testing progras does not include the periodic testing of response times of the temperature and flow sensors. The standard 3&W technical specifications do not exclude these sensors from periodic response ti=e testing. All forms of ex-system testing should also be con-sidered for these sensors. If af ter considering these for=s, these exceptions continue to exist, detailed justification must be provided. Also, the basis for clai=ed initial sensor response ti=es for all sensors =ust be docu=ented.
Item 3 Confor ance to the Generic Resolution for Anticipated Transients Without Scras (ATWS).
b3I5 Ib[$)b Reauired Action bv NRC The staff has ce=pleted its review on a generic basis concerning ATWS and is in the process of formulating a detr.iled posi :1on pertaining to i=plementation of tT4S require =ents for Babcock and Wilcox plants. We will transmit this detailed position as soon as it beco=es available and will require that Three Mile Island Unit Nu=ber 2 conform to this position.
Item 4 Feedwater Latching System (FLS)
Statement of Concern The FLS as shown on Burns and Roe Drawing Nu=ber 3090, Sheet 74, Revision 3 does not appear to be consistant with the infor=ation contained in Section 15.1.15.2.3.2 and Figure 15.1.15-1 of the FSAR.
Required Action by Aoplicant Provide a clarifying discussd c.
Ite 3 Concerns relating to the permissive start interlocks for the E=ergency Feedwater Pumps.
Statement of Concern Burns and Roe Drawing Nu=ber 3090, Sheet 71, Revision 3 shows permissive start interlocks for both the motor driven and secas driven e=ergency feed-water pu=ps.
It is not apparent from this drawing and/or other $nfor=ation the purposa of these interlocks.
Recuired Action by Acolicant Provide a clarification discussion.
b3[5 I,.[!k)
@ Item 6 Documentation relating to the Decay Heat Removal (DHR) Low Pressure to High Pressure Isolation Valve Circuitry.
Statement of Concern The motor-operated valves used to prevent overpressurization of the DHR System by the Reactor Coolant System are required to conform to the following criteria:
1.
Two valves in series to isolate the DER low pressure system from the high pressure system.
2.
For notor-operated valves, the valves have independent and diverse interlocks to prevent valve opening at high pressure.
The interlocks are designed to comply with the requirements of IEEE Std 279-1971.
3.
The motor-operated valves are closed auta=atically whenever the reactor coolant system pressure exceeds the pressure rating of the low pressure system. The closure devices are designed to comply with the requirements of IEEE Std 279-1971.
4.
Suitable valve position indication should be provided for these valves in the control room.
The present information contained in the FSAR does not reflect full con-for=ance to this position. Of primary concern in this regard is the diversity of the intcriocks provided and the valve position indication available.
Required Action bv Apolicant Revision of FSAR to reflect full conformance to this position.
Item 7
^
Documentation relating to the Display Instrumentation necessary for Safe bSE5 ? ??<
s
-4_
Shutdown and Post-Accident Monitoring.
Required Action by Aeolicant Provide additional documentation demonstrating the reliability of power sources for the post-accident display instrumentation. This information should be included in the FSAR.
Item 8 Cencerns relating to the Changeover from the Injection Mode to the Recirculation Mode.
Statement of Concern The limiting time frame for which the =anual operations must be completed in order to accomplish the changeover has not been defined. Also, does the physical installation permit easy correlation of all the necessary instrumentation and controls which the operator will use.
Recuired Action bv Aoplicant This information should be provided and docketed.
Item 9 Main Control Room Alarms for selected bypas sed Safety-Related Cc=ponents.
Statement of Concern Selected safety-related components are bypassed and no control room alar:s are provided to indicate the bypassed condition, reference response to Q 22.11.
Required Action by Acolicant Alar =s located in the main control room should be provided for these co=ponents.
Sb 134
- Item 10 Co= nit =ent regarding the Hydrogen Recombiner to be used for this plant.
Statement of Concern The hydrogen recombiner to be used for this station requires additional seismic qualification testing. Atomic International has agreed to perform such testing. Should these tests reveal additional deficiencies we request that the applicant co= sit to correcting them.
Recuired Action Dockstad co=sitzent concerning the above.
Ites 11 Environ = ental Qualification for Safety-Related Instrumentation and Balance-Of-Plant Electrical Equipment Statement of Concern Recent re-analyses performed for this plant have indicated that the con-tainment at=osphere temperature exceeds that of the containment design basis temperature for a short period of time following selected steam line breaks within containment. Also, selected equipment within the balance-of-plaat scope of supply have no special environ = ental conditions specified.
Required Action by Aoplicant Additional documentation which de=onstrates the acceptability of any safety-related instrumentation located within containment which will be exposed to the noted higher te=perature.
Additional docu=entation demonstrating the acceptability of the noted (above) balanca-of-plant equipment for prolonged use at least within the design 85'12G
. normal environmental conditions at the particular locations as specified in Table 3.11-1 of the FSAR.
Iten 12 Docu=entation relating to the Contain= ant Electrical Penetrations.
Statement of Concern The FSAR does not state that any short circuit tests on =edium and low voltage penetration asse=blies (both for safety and non-safety cables associated with the electrical penetrations) will be performed to insure that the penetrations asse=blies can withstand, without loss of mechanical integrity, the -av4-n possible fault currer.t versus time conditions.
Recuired Action by Aeolicant These tests should be perfor=ed and their results documented in the FSAR.
(If they are not to be perfor=ed detailed justification =ust be provided.)
Item 13 Fire Stops and Seals Statement of Concern The interval for periodic insepections to be perfor=ed to identify open or deteriorated fire stops and seals has not been specified. Secondly, the administrative procedures and controls that will be
- tiowed when it becoces necessary tc breach a co=pleted fire stop or seal to add or recove cables has not been provided.
Reauired Action bv Apolicant Documentation concerning these items should be provided.
(We note that this general subject including fire detection and fire protection systems is being discussed generically within NRC and any additional requirements developed f3 'j - '",n -
will be applied to Three Mile Island Ur.it 2.)
Ites 14 Concerns relating to the control circuitry capability to power selected components from two redundant safety buses and conformance of the design to RG 1.6.
State =ent of Concern Selected Safety-Related components have the capability to be powered from either of two vital buses, reference Q22.24.
Reauired Action Discussion necessary concerning FSAR Figures 7.2-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6, 7.3-7, 7.3-8 and 7.3-9.
Also, discussion necessary concerning typical breaker starter co=bination sche =atic for which the above (statement of concern) is true. Additional documentation de=cnstrating confor=ance of the design to RG 1.6.
Item 15 Details of the Diesel Generator and Diesel Generator Auto Loacing Sequencing Saf ety Feature Actuation System Control Circuitry.
Statement of Concern Diesel Generator tripping devices and controls as shown en the detailed sche =atic diagra=s: Of pri=ary concern is the detailed design of the two out of three coincident lube oil pressure signal trips.
Also, diesel generator auto sequential loading circuitry: The =ain concern regarding this item is why on-line testing can' t be performed for these 85 137
- contacts (Should be able to show from detailed sche =atics).
Required Action Oral discussion with the detailed schematics. We will required on-line periodic testing of this circuitry.
Item 16 Additional specific information concerning non-confor=ance to Regulatory Guide 1.41.
State =ent of Concern Identification of specific sources and loads which will not be disconnected during testing in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.41.
Required Action Check status of previous oral cocsit=ent.
Item 17 Identification of plant areas and justification for less stringent separatica distances char those recoc= ended in Reg *tlatory Guide 1.75.
Recuired Action Identification of these plant areas. Also, supporting information should be provided whic'.1 demonstrates that the present separation distances are adequate.
Item 18 A note concerning the safety-related electrical schematics.
Confir= that the safety-relatec electrical schematics which vere submitted illustrate accurately the "as built" designs. We are aware that some of the
(${5 ~ ?$. fb
h
. design details will be determined durin2 the course of construction and =av not be available now.
However, to avoid any delay in the cocpletion of our review, revised drawings should be submitted as soon as possible af ter the detailed design infor=ation is available or any design changes are made.
We recocmend that you review the status of the electrical sche =atic drawings and submit revised drawings, where appropriate.
Three copies of each electrical schematic drawing should be submitted.
Non-proprietary versions of proprietary drawings, if any, =ust also be submitted. Since we will rely, in part, on the electrical sche =atics in reaching a conclusion on the design adequacy, the electrical schematics
=ust be submitted under oats or affir=ation. In addition, Section 1.7 of the FSAR should be revised to include a list of the proprietary and non-proprietary drawings submitted. The list should include the drawing nu=b e r, title, revision nu=ber and date.
The list should be revised when additional or revised sche =atic drawings are submitted.
40
)
ENCLOSURE
.)
TOPICAL REPORT EVALUATION a
Report Number:
EAN-10003 Revision 4 (Non-Proprietary)
Report
Title:
Qualification Testing of Protection Syste= Instrumentation Report Date: April 1975 Originating Organization:
Babccck and Wilcox, Cc=pany Revicued By:
Section A - Electrical, Instru=cntation and Control Systc=s Branch, Division of Technical Review Summary of Tocical Report The topical report presents the results of the seis=ic and environmental qualific.cion testing of the protection sys. tem instrumentation used in Babcock and Wilcox nuclear secam syste=s including:
detectors, signal conditioning instru=catation, power supplics, test signal generators, and relay logic.
Summary of Reculatory Evaluation As a result of our revicu, we have concluded that this topical report provides satisfactory ansucrs to the questions which ucre transmitted as a result of our revicu of Revisions 2 and 3 and is therefore an accept:ble basis for the qualification cf scac equipuunt in older plants.
Summary.of Regulatorv Position 1.
The subjcet report in its present form provides an acceptabic basis for testing instruments and control devices to demonstrace the capability of this equipment to function with precision and reliability over the full range of transient and steady-state conditions of both the energy sur ely and the environment during normal, abnormal, and accident cirenustances throughout wh'.ch the instrumentation cust perform.
~
2.
The testing uhich is presented in the subject report does not satisfy all of the requirc ents of IEEE Std 323-1974, which was published February 28, 1974 and can not be used as a basis for licensing :lants docketed for a conttruction permit af ter that date.
3.
RAN-10003 Revision 4 =ay be used as a basis for licensing plants in viich ccastruction permit second round questions vere issued pr4 r to l
April 30, 1974.
4.
The subject report is not applicable to solid state logic systems such as RPS;-II.
5." The subject report is only applicabic to the fol2 cuing portions of the rcactor prote'ction systen:
Groun 1 - Anotifier Mcdules
~
Preamplificr b IN Ccunt rate arx,difier
-2 a
Rate-of-change amplifier Buffer amplifier (a)
Lincar a:Plifier Logarithmic =plifier Square rcot extractor Linear brid;c Signal converter Sun / difference a=plifier Function generator Crouo II - Pouer Sunnly Mcdules System power supply ("}
Detector power supply Auxiliary pouer supply Croup III - Test Modules Source range test Inter =cdiate range tc t Power rance test Tenperature test I' low test Pressure tect,)
Contact monitor test Group IV - Logic Modules Bistable
- Contact monitor Croup V - RcJay Modules Auxiliary relay #
Reactor trip assambly Contact buffer (b)
Logic buffer (b)
Logic test (b)
Unit control (b)
Trip logic (b)
(a) Modules that are interchangeabic betacen the NI/RPS and the SFAS.
(b) Modules associated only with the SFAS (modules associated only.ti t h the NI/nPS have no indicater).
Detectors Prensurc,(Foxboro)
Pressure (Motorola) b3I5 I11.
G e
Differential Pressure (Eailey)
Temperature (Rescnount Models 177 CX, JD, and H)
Pressure Switch (Mercoid)
Neutron Detectors Therefore, the scismic and environ = ental qualifications of the rc=ainder of the Class IE equip cat in an application,must be reviewed separately.
6.
The individual applications must demonstrate that the equipment will cocply to the following interface criteria in its as installed conditica:
The still air temperature of the equipment must bc =aintained within a a.
range of 40 to 110 F at relative hur.idities of 50%.
b.
The interconnecting viring and connectors must be qualified to meet the envircutental and scismic plant design criteria.
The electrical power sources for the instrumentation shall =aintain c.
input to the cabincts of 107 to 127 V ac at 58 to 62 Hz.
d.
The applicant's Chapter 15 analysis shall be baned on assumed crrors f or the following equipecnt which are not less than those listed herein:
(1) Reactor Coolant Pressure Foxboro Equipment i 1.85%
Motorola Equipment i 3.69%
(2) Reactor Coolant Flou 4-3. 0%
(3) Reactor Coelant Tc=perature i 1.0%
(4) Reactor Coolant Pump Status 1 0.88%
Monitor (5) Reactor Building Pressure
+1.0%
-50%
(6) Neutron Monitoring Total Flux i 4.0%
Flux Imbalance 4,5.0%
If Motorola Pressure sensors are used, the technical specificatisns c.
shall require calibration not less frequently than once every four conths.
f.
The analysis in Chapter 15 of the Safety Anal'j::in Report shall 'ce based on assumed response times which are equal to or greatcr than b) I@
v the following times required for a response to 99% of the differential change froa a step input:
(1) Pressure Detectors 250 msec.
(2) Differential Pressure 250 msec.
Detectors (Flow)
(3) Temperature Detectors Models 5 sec*
177 GX and JD Model 177 H 3 sec*
- time to change 63.2% of applied step change in input (4) Preamplifier 100 ns rise time (5) Count rate amplifier 400 s 0 0.1 11:
1 s @ 106 n2 (6) Ratc20f-change amplifier
< 10s (7) Buffer amplifier 50 ms, 1 s (8) Linear amplifier 50 ms (9) Logarithmic smplifice 10s010f1 A
0.1 s @ 10 A
(10) Square root extractor Incr 250 ms Deer 500 ms (11) Linear bridge 10 ms (12) Signal converter 300 ms (temp output)
(13) Signal converter 300 ms (prers. output)
(14) Sum / difference amplifier E
10 ms out Scaled E 10 ms 0
(15)
Function generator Slope 15 ms
, [3 [5 I ll []
./
/,
./
J
,i
-5
$ 100 ms (16) Bistable (17) Reactor Trip 30 ms (interlock or test trips)
(18) Contact Buffer Modules energize 40 ms de-energize 100 ms (19) Logic Buffer Module 10 ms (20) Unit control Module Trip 50 ms g.
The applicant shall provide reactor coolant pump status monitors and detectors ihich shall have e. combined accuracy of 0.C87, and a response time of 6 ms or less.
h.
The applicant chall provide a description of and procedures for testing to assure that.the equipecnt is more accurate than and responds in a chorter time than the limits presented in req'uirements (c),
(f), and (g) above.
G e
e e
9 0
en e
e e
8 ATTENCANCE LIST NRC - MET ED DECEMBER 18, 1975 NRC Harley Silver Frank Ashe Peter Hearn GPUSC G. Wallace D. H. Reppert L. C. Lanese A. F. Za11 nick BLR A. F. Za11 nick D