ML20196B305
| ML20196B305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1988 |
| From: | Wang A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802110151 | |
| Download: ML20196B305 (4) | |
Text
,..
FEB 0 31933 Docket No. 50-213 Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Senior Vice President Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - HADDAM NECK PLANT On October 13. 1987 the NRC met with your staff to discuss your plans to modernize the Reactor Protection and Control System. Based on that meeting and the information presented, the NRC staff has determined that additional information is needed to complete our review.
Enclosed are our questions, which we would propose to use as an agenda for a meeting. As discussed with your staff, the meeting is to be held February 10, 1988 at the NRC White Flint Office.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore. OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at (301) 492-1313.
original signed by Alan B. Wang Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 l
Division of Reactor Projects 1/11
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o enclosure See next page
(
)lSTRIBUTION
")ocket. File
,NRC & Local PDRs PDI-4 Files SVarga BBoger SNorris
~
AWang OGC EJordan JPartlow ACRS(10)
AThadani AAsars TShedlosky JStolz LA: 01-4 PM:PDI-D:PDI-4 SN rs AWang:1 JStolz 2/J5/08 2/3 /88 2/ /88 8802110151 0802CK3 PDR ADOCK 05000213 P
PDR i
i u
Q Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Connecticut Yar.kee Atomic Pcwer Conpany Haddan Neck Plant ec!
Gerald Garfield, Esquire R. H. Kacich, Manager Dty, Berry and Howard Generation Facilities Licerstre; Ccurselors at Law Northeast Utilities Service Corpany City Place Post Office Box ?70 Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-C27C W. D. Remberg, Vice President D. O. Nordquist, Director Nuclear Operations Quality Services Departrent Northeast Utilities Service Company Northeast Utilities Services Corpary Post Office Box 270 Post Office Eox 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Kevin McCarthy, Director Regional Administrator Radiation Control Unit Region I Departnent of Environtrental Protection C. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission State Office Building i!?1 Park Avenue Harticrd, Connecticut 06106 Ming of Prussia, Per.nsylvania 19406 Bradford S. Chase, Under Secretary lloard cf Selectmer.
Energy Divisien Tc,m Hall Office of Policy and Managerent Faddan, Connecticut 06103 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 J. T. Shedlosky, Resider.t Inspector Haddam Neck Plant D. E. Miller, Station Superintendent c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrnissier Haddam Neck Plant Post Office Box 116 RFD t 1 East Haddam Post Ofiite Post Office Bcx 127E Etst Haddam, Connecticut 06423 East Hampten, Connecticut 06424 G. E. Bouchard, Unit Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD / 1 Post Office Box 127E East Harpton, Connecticut 06424
Q
/
EliCLOSURE INSTRUl'.ENTATION Af.D CONTROL SYSTEM 5 BRANCH RELLEST FOR ADDITIONAL IfiFORMATION hADL.AM NECK RPS OPGRADE The 'r.strumentation and Control Systers Dranch is currently reviewing the reactcr protection system redernization at Haddar Neck Plant. As a result cf our review of the dccurentaticri provided thus far, the following questions have been identifieo which require a fermal response in order for our review to be cocpleted.
1.
New instrument racks and inoicators in the control room have been installed. New cables have been installed from the sensors to the new instrunent racks and to the new inoicators in the control rocm. Provide a detailed description of the separation criterien for the new cables and equipment and its conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.75 and IEEE-STD-384.
Cenpare this separation criterien to that currently utilized in the plant.
2.
Plant Design Change Record 861 stt.tes that no physical or electrical separation will be provided between protection system instrument channels and logic trains until 1969. Provide a discussion of the failure modes in instrunent enannels ard logic and their impact upon plant safety.
3.
Isolation devices are utilized between separation grcups and between safety and non-safety systems. Provide a detailed description of design criteria, tests performed ar.d test results for all isolation devices utilized.
4.
Plant Design Change Record 861 states that the new pressurizer level channels have a control / protection system interaction problem. Provide a j
detailed description of ine interaction scenario including failure modes and backup protection functions available.
V 5.
Plant Design Change Record 661 states that a time response acceptance criterior will be developed. Provide a detailed ccmparisen of the new instrument channel response times te the old channel response times and relate the new response tines to the appropriate Chapter 15 analyses in the plant UFSAR.
6.
Plant Design Cherge Record EC1 states that the existing setpoints are acceptable for the new instrument charnels.
Previde a detailed comparison of the new instrument channel errcrs (calibraticn, drift, environmental, etc.) with the old instrunent charnel errors and relate to the apprcpriate Chapter 15 safety analysis limits in the plant UFSAR.
7.
Plant Design Change Reccrd 661 states that the current plant Technical Specifications centain surveillance intervals which are longer than the equipment manufceturtr's recontendations.
Previde a discussion of the informal curvei:lanc.e to be conducted and justification for not requesting Technical Specification changes for shorter, more conservative survelliance intervals as this time.
8.
New Foxboro SPEC 200 MICR0 equipment has been installed. Provide a detail discussion of the inservice testability cf this equipment and its conformance to Regulatcry Guides 1.22 and 1.118 and IEEE-STD-338.
9.
The new Foxboro SPEC 200 MICR0 equipment contains microprocessor-based hardware. Provide a detailed discussion of verification and validation (V&V) techniques applied to the hardware and software including a discussion of conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.150 and ANSI /IEEE-ANS-7-4.3.2-1982 or any other V&V nethodology used for sof tware developtrent.
- 10. Plant Design Change Recorc! 861 states that the interlocks for the celd leg loop stop valves have been downgraded to "control giade." Provide a detailed discussion of the administrative procedures / technical specifications provided tc prevent temperature / boron dilution events from j
occurring cue to improper startup of an isolated loop. Provide a discussion of the design changes related to the downgrading of tne g
interlocks. Provide a discussion of the safety significance of the dcwngrading anc relate to the appropriate Chapter 15 analysis.
d