ML20032A509
| ML20032A509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032A510 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-06-07.A3, TASK-6-7.A3, TASK-RR LSO5-81-10-048, LSO5-81-10-48, NUDOCS 8110300269 | |
| Download: ML20032A509 (4) | |
Text
J
- . /
October 27, 1981 Docket No. 50-245
.-.IL 4
LS05-81 10-048 9
$b b
00Q g I
-2 Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President
! -?
%@j@98ib t
Nuclear Engineering and Operations 32
!!ortheast Nuclear Energy Corpany d
co 8
Post Office Box 270
)fj.,
Hartford, Connecticut 061 A q< 'q3 9
~
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC VI-7.A.3, ECCS ACTUATI0ft SYSTEM SER FOR HILLST0ilE NUCLEAR POWER STATI0:1 UNIT 1 is the safety evaluation report that is based on Enclosure 2.
This safety evaluation presents the staff position regarding the de-sign of your facility in this area. is a copy of our contractor's final evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic VI-7. A.3.
This assessment has been modified to reflect the additional information provided by your [[letter::A01825, Comments on NRC Evaluation of SEP Topic VI-7.A.3 Re ECCS Actuation Sys.Disagrees W/Nrc Conclusion Re Core Spray & LPCI Sys.Section D.4 of Reg Guide 1.22 Only Applies to Actuated Equipment Not Tested During Reactor Operation|August 25, 1981 letter]].
The staff proposes changes in the Technical Specifications as a result of our review. The need to implement these changes will be determined during the integrated safety assessment for your plant. This topic assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed er if HRC criteria relating to this topic are modified befare the integrated assessment is completed.
Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch rio. 5 Division of Licensing 5
Enclosures:
g:8 As stated h
/
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
$k 0110300269 8i1027 bl.
3 9 W g $f< gf)j PDR ADOCK 05000245
(
P PDR L
Ac N nr S
TDL SEPB:D, SEPB:DL ORB #5:DL:.
OR sname >
K%ftalhdk...RHgnadn.,,
p A
A:DL ornce)
. Ru s s e,1.,1.,
.JShea.,.
,,fDC
.t.c hfiel..d..gaha.s.,,,
W
..l.0/.} /81..10/.f../.81..
.10/ 6/.81..
.10//f.....10/26v81..
.10//p/81..
out)
~
OFF1CIAL RECDRD COPY USGPO: 1981 -3E-A0 nne ronu ata tio-so) Nncu c:40 e
Mr. W. G. Counsil cc.
William H. Cuddy, Esquire Connecticut Energy Agency Day, Berry & Howard ATTN: Assistant Director Counselors at Law Research and Policy
' One Constitution Plaza Development Hartford, Connecticut 06103' Department of Planning and Energy Policy.
Natural Resources Defense Council 20 Grand Street 91715th Street, N. W.
Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Washington, D. C.
20005 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Superintendent Millstone Plant P. O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Mr. Richard T. Laudenat f
Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. 0.. Box 270 H rtford, Connecticut 06101 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box Drawer KK Niantic, Connecticut 06357 Waterford Public Library Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 First Selectman of the Town Of Waterford i
Hall or Records l
200 Boston Post Road Waterford, _ Connecticut 06385 l
John F. Opeka Systems Superintendent Northeast Utilities Service Company l
P. O. Box 270 l
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 U. S. Environmental Proteccion Agency Region I Office l
ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR l
JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 r
q SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC VI-7.A.3 MILLSTONE l' TOPIC: VI 7.A.3, ECCS ACTUATION SYSTEM I.
INTRODUCTION The ECCS actuation system was reviewed with respect to the testability of. operability and performance of individual active components of the system and of-the entire system as a whole under conditions as close to the design condition as practical. The purpose of the reviews was to assure that all ECCS components (e.g. valves and pumps) are included in the component and system test and to assure that the scope of the periodic testing is adequate and meets the requirements of GDC 37. The technical specifications were also audited for large differences be->
tween the present test requirements and those in the Standard Technicel Specifications.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The current licensing criteria are identified in Section 2 of EGSG Re-port EGG-EA-5579, "ECCS Actuation System."
III.
Related Safety Topics and Interfaces The scope of review for this topic was limited to avoid duplication of effort since some aspects of the review were performed under related topics.
Related topics and the subject matter are identified below.
Each of the related topic reports contain the acceptance criteria and review guidance for its subject matter.
Topic VI-3, " Containment Pressure and Heat Removal Capability."
Topic VI-4, " Containment Isolation System."
Topic VI-7, " Emergency Core Cooling System."
Topic VI-7.C, "ECCS Single Failure ' Criterion and Requirements for Locking. Out Power to Valves Including Independence of Interlocks on ECCS Valves."
Topic VI-9, " Main Steam Isolation."
Topic VI-10.A, " Testing of Reactor Trip Systera and Engineered Safety Features Including Response Time Testing."
Only Topic VI-10 A. is dependent on the present topic information for completion. Response time testing is addressed in Topic VI-10.A.
f m
~. =
-2.
4
.IV. -REVIEW GUIDELINES The review guidelines are presented in Sectinn 3,' 4, 5, and 6 of Report EGG-EA-5579.
V.
EVALUATION Report EGG-EA-5579 describes the extent to which the ECCS actuation system can be tested,- except for the question of response time testing.
The report '
notes-that the testing'of the Core Spray system does not. satisfy General Design Criterion 37Lbecause the spray pump. space coolers are not tested.
The testing of the LPCI system does not satisfy General Design Criterion 37 because the tests that are conducted do not. demonstrate that the Station-Emergency Service Water system will start when LPCI is initiated The repor't also notes that the Technical Specifications do not specify that each of~ the four LPCI pump combinations must be capable of delivering 15,000 gpm.
However,.the staff-notes that Technical Section 4.5.A.4 requires.that any three pumps be capable of delivering 15,000 gpm and that each pump be flow rate tested after pump maintenance and every three' months. ' Specification 4.5.A.5 regi! ires verification of this capability when-it is determined that oneLof the Tour pumps is inoperable.
VI. CONCLUSION Based upon cur review of our contractor's evaluation, the staff concludes that the Millstone 1 plant does not conform to GDC 37 because supporting systems areinot adequately tested. A suitable change in the Technical Speci-fications should be developed.
.