ML19224A603
| ML19224A603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Capra R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904030149 | |
| Download: ML19224A603 (8) | |
Text
d
's.
UNITED STATES s
O.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMisslON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h
p' ;;
MAR 0 9 1979 Docket Nos. STN 50-596 and STN 50-597 APPIICANT: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation FACILITY:
New Haven, Units 1 & 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 1979 TO DISCUSS INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ACCEPTANCE REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR NEW HAVEN, UNITS 1 & 2 A meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland on February 28,1979 with representatives # the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSE&G), Combust..sn Engineering, Inc. (CE), and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W) to discuss instrumentation and control acceptance review questions.
A list of attendees is included as.
Background
At an earlier meeting in Bethesda on December 15, 1978 with the applicant, we discussed the difficulty we were having in understanding the use of and the interrelationship of several documents that are referenced in Chapter 7 of the New Haven Preliminary Safety Analysis As a result of that meetile, the applicant discussed Report (PSAR).
a proposed draft amendment for the PSAR s.hich would provide additional guidance regarding the integration of the New Haven PSAR with CESSAR, SWESSAR ano the TVA Yellow Creek application.
Our December 27, 1973 letter informed the applicant that the New Haven PSAR was acceptable for docketing. IMwever, we stated in that letter that we were still developing questions in the instrumentation and We informed NYSE&G that the acceptance review questions control area.
The instrumentation in this area would be forwarded at a later date.
and control acceptance review questions were forwarded to NYSE&G by our letter dated February 16, 1979.
'~')
Q:
79040301%
452 100
~?*
MAR U 0 1979 The applicant requested a meeting with the staff to discuss the instrumentation and control acceptance review questions in order to insure that they had a clear understanding of each question and to allow us to listen to their proposed responses.
This would hopefully mininize the turn around time for the applicant's responses and insure more complete responses, acceptable to the staff when they are formally documented.
Discussion Each of the seven instrumentation and control acceptance review questions was discussed in detail and proposed responses were presented by the applicant.
A copy of the questions which were discussed is included as Enclosure 2.
A clearer understanding was gained by the staff of the interrelationship of the New Haven PSAR with CESSAR, SWESSAR-Pl, Topical Report CENPD-172, and the referenced portions of the TVA Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant PSAR.
The applicant stated that it was their intention to integrate the specific staf f corrents on each question, raised at the meeting, with the future amendment to the PSAR by mid-April 1979.
A potential problem area cane to light during the meeting.
The applicant stated that the two exceptions it is taking to CESSAR, as modified in the Yellow Creek applicatior., (repackaging of the plant protection system and the reactor trip switchgear) were necessary to interface with the control building design change made in Amendment 38 to SWESSAR-Pl.
Thus the potential problem that was identified is that the New Haven application not only references the SWESSAR-P1 PDA (PDA-6) but also includes Amendmeno 29 - 38 to SWESSAR-P1 which have been nade since the issuance of the PDA.
Conclusion At the close of the meeting, the applicant committed to providing responses to the instrunentation and control acceptance review questions by mid-April 1979.
The staff felt that if the formal responses to the acceptance review questions covers the material presented in the meeting, 452 i04
MAR 0 9 19I9 the major review effort in the instrumentation and control portion of the flew Haven application will be focused on the fiber optic inter-cabinet interfaces of the compartmented plant protection system and the modifications to the reactor trip switchgear.
~RaLu2 cog e -
Robert Capra, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project fianagenent
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 4S2 103
4-MAR 0 91979 tar. r 11 n f. Kint ich,
'l i w Fr e ik n t - (,enere t ion Iit '. f i. ) ! ! 'ldi tf ! l tlt[ r l(
l i d 'i I. O r [l o t'ii t 1011 4500 Vestal l'orkway Last Binghamton, New Yori 13902 cc:
Roderick Schut t, fsq.
!Nt e r, Ma g i l l, I.n.r.:nt e larrell (F) Parf fiv e nu e New York, New iorf 10016
/rdrew W. Lof f or d, Jite Fre ntdent Long Island Lighting Lumpany 1/5 Old Country Road lii cksville, New York 11801 Edward M. Parrett, Esq.
General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York i1501 L. J. Walsh, Jr. Esq.
General Attorney Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Ms. Anne F. Curtin R.D. 1 Box 82A40 Valatie, New York 12184 ORQgi 452 103
ENCLOSURM ATTENDANCE LISI NK D. Vassallo
- 0. Parr R. Satterfield M. Srinivasan A. Dromerick D. Thatcher T. Cox D. Sells W. Prue R. Capra NYSE&G it. Ray A. Zallnick G. Griffith R. Kelley CE A. Tuzes P. Yanosy T. Gates S&W B. Schultz A. Morse, Jr 452 10Y
S ENCLOSURE 2 NSTRUVENTATIM AND CONTROL SYSTEMS BD ANCH 032.0 Discuss the following aspects of environmental qualification as it,.
032.1
( 3. l ' )
- rel, s tu C6 4pter 7 o f the NYSE!G PSAO -
(1) i se sta f f's Saf ety Evaluation Report of SWESSAR-PI (NUREG-0096) states in Section 7.6.1, " Environmental Qualification of Class ic Electrica! Equip +ent" "T*'e details for the develorment o f the progran, including interface the acceptance criteria, have been defined as an ratter
- .o be addressed in the application for a construc-tion per.it by a utility applicant referencing the SWESSAR-el desian.
Therefore, provide the details of the quali fication program, including the acceptance criteria or as discussed ' Love,
- w o v i d e a 5
- hHule for submi ttal Tho schedule should inm 'adt tht sui ' ital date for the details of the program,
!
- acte m nce critoria, and the projected submittal date ne *v test rec uits i
NYSE'.1 utilizos portions of the Yellnw Creek design that are ine CE scope o f supply but not covered by the CESSAR w'*'
or AES!;p cm A s For these electrical, instrunentation and con *ra: cc cor.ents used To the 'i(SELG design, provide the sa e onviron~ ental qualification progran details as requested
'n (1) above.
03? '
tirce tho NYSE51 PSAR references the Yellow Creek solid state des' y as well as CESSAR and SWESSAR, provide
'?'
>: r c '., ( n s st m inving i n f or~a t ion :
{1, A list of the syste s or portions of the systems used in the NYSE5.G design s.hich will be designed identically to the cor-respondinc syste~s on Yellow Creek, CESSAR, or SWESSAR as applicaS o system or portions of the systems which are not
(
)
ror any
' don *, cal, ;)covide a co~plete description which reets the r.
- u i re orts o' the R.G.
l.70 (Standard Format and Content et Sa'<*, Inalvsis Roperts for Nuclear Power Plants),
for
- hese sj,te s, also address the ' Acceptance Criteria for Table 7 1 o f the Standard Peview Plan.
Co' irol s ' o f
)
Explain the terminolcey " functionally identical" used in Sec:'on '1 of the NYE~',G PSAP with details for each system utusso?
452 1 0 8 ~~-~~-
~
rr the Plant Protection System, provide the following information:
O P.3 o
_r (7.2) the circuitries of the NYSE&G Compartmented Plant (1)
Verify that Protection Systen (CPPS) are identical to the circuitries of the Yellow Creek protection system and that the NYSE&G design is simply a repackaging of the Yellow Creek circuitries in separate cabititts.
(?)
Veri fy the circuitries of the Reactor Trip Switchgear for N < 5 E '. G a r e identical to the circuitries of the Yellow Creek design and that they have been repackaged (i.e.
separa te cabinets l for NYSE&G.
I' any di f ferences in design are identified, verify that these d4 'f erences cr~ ply with all applicable safety criceria.
For the fiber optic inter-cabinet interfaces of the Compartnented 032."
'7 2 Plant ?rotectior System (CPDS), provide the following information:
(1)
Provide a co~plete description of the design in conformance w,9
.G.
1,70.
(2' Provide the speci fic desian bases and design criteria and
".CCeptanCe Criteria for Controls' of Tablo 7-1 a & ess the o
t he S tanda rd 'tevi es Pi a n.
f (3)
Specify whether this area is in the scope of design of CE r: r S&W or others.
(*)
ror this area of design, identify any changes to the interface rNuire~ents evaluated by the staf f during the PDA reviews of E SSAP and/or SWESSAR or the review of CENPD-172.
e\\
~~c In Section 7.3 " Engineered Sa fety Features Systems", the " Solid state Co ponent Contrcl Systen (SSCCS)' is discussed.
It is our i
undors tandi nc that t"e SSCrS is fellow Creek terminology and that knissyste, is referred to as the " Compartmented Plant Protection Syste (C WS)' in other sections of the NYSE&G application.
(')
Please veri fy this assu~ption.
If not true, provide a complete descript:oq of this systen in conformance with R. G. 1.70.
Include specific cesi<jn bases and design criteria and address the ' Acceptance Cri teria for Controls" of Table 7-1 of the Standard Review Plan.
(2)
Specify whether this area is in the scope of design of CE or S&W or others, (3) for this area of design, identify any changes to the interface requirt ents evaluate by the staff during the PDA reviews of CESSAR and/or S'.H5STJ PL ORDy1 452 106
.4 e
- a 0 3 ? _ f, c!arify whethnr the " Plant Monitoring System (PMS)" is in the CE (7.7) or $ '. W sc op., o f suppl y for iiYSE&G.
For this area of the design, identify any cha"ges to the interface requirements evaluated by
+ ". - s ta f f d;ri n>; t ho PDA reviews of CESSAR and/or SWESSAR.
032.7 Your letter of December 19, 1978 forwarded a draf t of a future (7.8) a end-ont to Chapter 7 of the NYSE&G PSAR.
Section 7.8 of the craft a"mnc en' uses the terninology " functionally identical,"
Explain this t erni nolo-3y wi th sui table exarples.
Also.cr9ti fy any changes to the S'.;ESS AR/CESSAR interf ace requirenents caused Dy reference to portions of the Yellow Creek design or by other c"anges to the I?.C des
' which are unique to NYSE'.G.
5 10'1