ML19256B168
| ML19256B168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1979 |
| From: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GD-79-187, NUDOCS 7901240195 | |
| Download: ML19256B168 (2) | |
Text
'
CP&L Carolina Power & Light Company January 19, 1979 SERIAL: GD-79-187 FILE: NG 3514(B)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTENTION:
Mr. T. A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC FLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 CONTAINMENT PURGING DURING NORMAL PLANT OPERATION
Dear Mr. Ippolito:
We have reviewed your letter of November 29, 1978, and its attachments which related to containment purging during normal operation at our Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. As indicated in our letter of December 29, 1978, our response is as follows:
Our purging is controlled by plant operating procedures. The purging is done through Containment Atmospheric Control System valves. These valves are 18, 20, and 24-inch butterfly valves which are designed to close against design maximum ressure withia ten seconds. These valves are operated via their normal operating switches, and if open, they will close upon receiving a high drywell pressure signal (2 psi), a reactor low water level signal (+12.5 inches) or a high radiation signal (reactor building ventilation exhaust). The valve logic is designed such that the isolation signal can be overridden for some of these valves. This override could be used following an accident and is controlled by plant procedures.
(One such use would be for the Containment Atmospheric Dilution System.)
As addressed in your letter, Page 3, Section (3), we plan to justify unlimited purging.
Based on the schedule received from our design agent, we will provide the basis for purging and a response to the issues relating to purging during normal operation as described in Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4, Revision 1, and the associated Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4 by May 1, 1979.
Our investigations have revealed ne safety concerns over purging during normal operation. We request not to be limited to 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year since this will limit our ability to continue plant operations. Presently 0
+
~
790124 o M 5 g eh 411 Fayetteville Street
- P. O. Box 1551 e Raleigh, N. C 27602 f$
=
g
,r-Mr. T. A. Ippolito January 19, 1979 1
inerting and venting operations average out to approximately one hour per day. Due to our system design and control through operating procedures, we do not feel that we should be limited to a fixed number. These valves are only operated with normal control switches and thus will isolate on an acci-dent signal. It is necessary for us to operate these valves to maintain our drywell inerted, to deinert and to maintain proper pressure levels.
We have reviewed the design of all our safety actuation signal circuits and determined that, except for those controlled by plant pro-cedures, we do not have any manual overrides which additionally override any other safety actuation signals.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact our staff.
Yours very truly, E. E. Utley Senior Vice President Power Supply JPT/WLT/mf