ML20003G647
| ML20003G647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1981 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-7089, NUDOCS 8104300363 | |
| Download: ML20003G647 (3) | |
Text
/
UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y Y;,
y g 7.,f M.g,4 j
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s p u u.a o i
%..'..*./
April'16, 1981
&f Docket No. 50-336 t
g u,gQ%RE Qk '$
Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President jw/
Nuclear Engineering & Operations
'*Doo g/
Northeast Nuclear Energy Ccmpany
(
P. O. Box 270 j
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 p
Dear Mr. Counsil:
In a continuing review of open licensing actions on power reactors, the staff has resumed the evaluation of the Reactor Protection System (RPS) inoperable channel condition for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2.
This item was initiated by our letter to you dated December 7,1977 which requested your review of the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for operation with an inoperable RPS channel and asked that you either apply for a TS change to require placing an inoperable channel in the tripped conditions within one hour or request a NRC review of your existing system.
By letter dated September 21, 1977, you submitted the bases for continued l
operation of the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 with an inoperable RPS channel in the bypassed condition for an unlimited time period.
In this condition, the RPS logic is changed from a 2-out-of-4 to a 2-out-of-3 logic.
On August 2,1978, a meeting was held to clarify our position on this subject l
and to gain an understanding of the licensee's position. Enclosure 1 is the minutes of the August 2, 1978 meeting.
This review has been expanded to include the Eng:neered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) since a preliminary review indicates a similar l
problem exist with the TS for ESFAS operability requirements.
Long tem operation of a four channel RPS and ESFAS in a 2-out-of-3 logic configuration would be acceptable provided all four channels are sufficiently independent. However, in order for us to make such a finding, we require elaboration of the independence of the four channels in each system.
Therefore, we request that you provide, within 90 days of your receipt of this letter, the results of your investigation into the adequacy of both physical and electrical separation to detemine channel independence of the four sensing channels. This investigation should include separation of the parameter sensors, transmitters and cable runs from the transmitters to the RPS and ESFAS cabinets in the control room. Channel independence within the cabinets and other enclosures which house the plant protection system should also be reviewed.
810430056'3 P
--~-,--.-.2
,3---,,p.
---,-r.
. As you know, our staff conducted an on-site RPS revies at the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie units.
A 00py of the resultant Safety Evaluation for St. Lucie, presenting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5),
is provided for your information as Enclosure 2.
Our conclusion was that allowing indefinite bypass of one of the four RPS is not justified, but since the four channel CE system does have some independence, bypassing for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> during testing or maintenance of one RPS channel is justified.
As an alternative to the requested review of RPS and ESFAS channel separation, we will consider issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS for your RPS and ESFAS if you provide an application including documentation of design similarity to those of Calvert Cliffs and St.
Lucie. provides sanale TS for year use. Any such application should be subnitted within the same 90 days of your receipt of this letter.
If your have questions on this subject, please contact your NRC Project fianager.
Sincerely.
~')
j.I; Y.- -
-(.. '
Robert A. Clark, Chief.
's,
Operating Reactors Branch !3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Minutes of meeting 2.
Safety Evaluation for St. Lucie 3.
Calvert Cliffs TS cc: See next page s
Northeast Nuc7 ear Energy Company cc:
William H. Cuddy, Esquire Mr. John Shedlosky Day, Berry & Howard Resident Inspector /Millstane Counselors at Law c/o U.S.N.R.C.
One Constitution Plaza P. O. Drawer KK Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Niantic, CT 06357 Anthony Z. Roisman Mr. Charles Brinkman Natural Resources Defense Council Manager - Washington Nuclear 91715th Street, N.W.
Operations Washington, D. C.
20005 C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Lawrence Bettencourt, First Selectman 4853 Cordell Aven., Suite A 1 Tevn of Waterford Bethesda, MD 20014 Hall of Records - 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Northeast Nuclear Energy Cor:pany ATTN: Superintendent Millstone Plant Connecticut Energy Agency Post Office Box 128 ATTN: Assistant Director, Research Waterford, Connecticut 06385 and Policy Development Department of Planning and Energy Waterford.Public Library Policy Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 20 Grand Street Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Hartford, CT 06106 Director, Criteria and Standards Division Office of Radiation Prograns (ANR-460)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agnecy Region I Office i
ATTN: EIS C00dDINATOR l
John F. Kennedy Federal Building Bosten, Massachusetts 02203 l
Northeast Utilities Service Conpany l
ATTN: Mr. James R. Himmelwright l
Nuclear Engineering and Operations P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
,,n-ym-..
,g-.
ENCLOSURE 1 UNITED STAT E:
[
.3
.G NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC'.*.ilsslON
,i*U' WASHINGTOff, D. C. ?C555
- ('.T%'j September 12, 1978 Dockets !!os.:
50-255, 50-285, 50-309, 50-317, 50-318, 50-335 and 50-336 LICEriSEES:
BALTIl10RE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (BG5E), CONSUMERS POWER C0!iPANY (CP), FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT C0f PA'iY (FP&L), MAI!;E YANKEE AT0filC POWER C0!'PANY (fiYAP), f:0RTHEAST tlUCLEAR Ei!ERGY COMPANY (fiNECO), AND OPAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (OPPD)
FACILITIES: CALVERT CLIFFS UNITS tiOS.1/2, FORT CALHOUti, PAlt E YANKEE, MILLST0!iE UNIT !;0. 2, PALISADES AtiD ST. LUCIE UNIT tiO. 1.
SUBJECT:
MIrlUTES OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 2,1978 WITH THE ABOVE LICEtlSEES TO DISCUSS THE REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM (RPS)
CHANNEL ItiOPERABILITY.
A ceeting was held on August 2,1978 with the above licensees and representatives of Cor.bustion Engineering (CE) to discuss the length of time a single failed RPS channel should be bypassed before requiring it to be tripped. Attachment 1 is a list of attendees.
remarks (!!. Conner) and a history of the inoperable The NRC made opening (J. Burdoin).
In a similar meeting on March 16, 1976, RPS channel subject we determined that the RPS had been reviewed and approved for a two-out-of-four logic only.
In a followup letter to each facility, we requested that each license propose Technical Specifications (TS) to include a failed RPS to be placed in the tripped condition within one hour. !!e also stated that we would undertake a detailed review of the particular RPS that could result in a two-out-of-three trip logic require =ent.
NNECO (A. Roby) pointed out that they wil'1 be the lead spokesmen on this subject. His important comments were:
1.
The flRC approved the RPS design at the operating license stage.
2.
There is no change in the requirements of the revised IEEE applicable standards.
?c DUPLICATE DOCUVENT r
y, 31 Entire document previously g
entered into system under:
F R/o4G25 0/3/
ANO No. of paces:
[
<n
. f
,$ )y L, y'[,"
- [ g..
g
u misasTA ns ENCIOstcE 7 f
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmwTow. o. c.2 ossa
{ p gf.- ;
.jgt i
(*".dN/
SAFETY EVALUATIO t BY THE OFFICE OF ti'JCLEAR REA SUFFORTIfiG AME!iDHE?U fiO.15 TO LICEllSE NO. DFR-67 FLORIDA POWER & LIG!!T C0".PAriY_
ST. LUCIE PLAffT UtiIT i!O.1 DOCKET f;0. 50-335_
IfRR000CTIOfi Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) 20, 1976, By application dated April The amend-requested a=end=ent to the St. Lucie Plant Unit tio. I lict.nse.
ment would modify the Technical Specifications to alicw any one of the fo Reactor Protection System (RPS) channels and one of the fcur Engineere Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) channels to be in dition indefinitely.
the inoperable channel must be in the tripped condition.
DISCUSSI0t{
18,1976 meeting, the NRC staff stated that the Technical Specifications dealing with the RPS and ESFAS would req As the result of the February that an inoperable channel be placed in the tripped co The bases for on March 1,1976, with the issuance of the facility license.
hour.
the staff position were:
The one hour requirement is consistent with the specifications impos on other pressurized water reactor nuclear steam system suppliers; a a.
The staff reviewed the plant as a two-out-of-four system, not as a b.
two-cut-of-three system with an installed spare.
m
. e m :qw~-% w --
tv
~
s; DUPLICATE DOCUMENT M
Q~
Entire docurent previously entered into system under:
e
[
yd8 C/$
/ [
no. or pages:
m 9
~ ~ ~
..z _ _
l m
p
,,-y
,wy m---,y-y-.ee--
n,.--p..-m.-,.-
.,7.-
9-m--
ei-
--q,-