Text

Sumarizes 780802 Meeting W/Utils & C-E in Bethesda,Md Re Action Requirements in Event of Reactor Protection Sys Channel Inoperability.Meeting Held to Clarify NRC Position on Subj as Presented in 771207 Ltr.W/O Encls
	ML20238E702
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades, Fort Calhoun, 05000000
Issue date:	09/30/1978
From:	Reid R; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Short T; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
Shared Package
ML20238E606	List: ML20238E604; ML20238E644; ML20238E652; ML20238E697; ML20238E702;
References
	TAC-7089, NUDOCS 8709150148
	Download: ML20238E702 (2)
	v • d • e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _

i l

l DISTRIBUT10th , , ,

l Docket File Glainas ~

j NRC PDR .~ ~ UTondi ,.

L PDR JBurdoin .

l Docket h'o.: 00-285 ORBf4 Rdg ; [ ,'T l

RReid ~

1 RIngram [

l PErickson . . ,_

i MConner Omaha Public Power District Attorney, OELD [ _ [.

l ATTN: Mr. Theodore E. Short . OI&E(3) . ,,,

l Division Manager - Prcduction DEisenhut , , _,

Operations TERA, DSB l _ _ ,

l 1623 Harney Street JRBuchanan , ,

Onaha, !;ebraska 68102 ACRS (16) , ,,

TCarter . ,

Centlemen: Gray File , ,

~

On August 2,1970, representatives frou utilities using Combustion l Engir.cering (CE) HSSS and from CE met in Bethesda, liaryland to discuss the action requirements in the event of Reactor Protection System (RPS) channel inoperability. Enclosure 1 15 the minutes of this meeting. The meeting was held to clarify our position en this subject as presented in our letter dated December 7,1977 and to gain an understanding of your position as indicated in your response cated January 31, 1978. This same subject had been discussed pre-viously on March 16, 1976.

In our previous correspondence, we requested that you subott an app 11-cation for license amendment to change the Ft. Calhoun Technical Specifications (TS) Section 2.15 to require inoperable RPS channels to be placed in the " tripped" status within one hour af ter Deing ceclared inoperable. We further stated that you could request that we under-take a specific facility review of your RPS to cetermine the suitabil-ity of operating the RPS in a two-out-of-three logic. Your response f requested such a specific facility RPS review and we propose that the Ft. Calhoun RPS review be schedule 3for the rnonth of Hovember 1978.

The exact date wi'l tv macinated through your Operating Reactor Branch Project hanager (ORPH). Enclosure 2 is the PPS review items that will be of interest to our review team. .

As you know, our staff has conducted the RPS review at the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie units. A copy of the resultant Safety Evaluation for St. Lucie, presenting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5),

is provioed for your int'ornation as Enclosure 3. Our conclusion was l

l 4

8709150148 780910 PDR ADDCK 05000255 P PDR y ['

1 l }

Onaba Public Power District l K.

l that allowing indefinite bypass of one of the four. RPS is not i' 1

justified, but since the four channel CE systen does.have sone independence, bypassing for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months duritsg test 1ng or maintenance l of one_ RPS channel is justified.

As an alternative to the onsite IRC review of your'RPS, we will consirter issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS

(

of your RPS if you provice an application including documentation

. of your RPS sinilarity to those of Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie. Any

such application'should be submitted within 45 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely, Robert W. Reid, Chief .

Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors Enlosbres:

1. fleeting Suanary

2. Review Item

3. Safety Evaluation 3

cc w/encit;sures: See next page l

i- I Y

I l

ORBf4: DOR ORB #4: DOR C-PSB: DOR . AD-E&P:00R ~C-0RBf4;D08.

ELConner:rf PErickson Glainas, BGrirros RReid...

9/ /78 9/ /78 9/ /76 9/ /78 9/ f/78 ,e

.n.,~* n l l

_ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - _ - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ - a

i -

l #. .. j.- ,,,7 g,"

9%l r y ,g%&? hw+tfp /

DISTRIBUTION: '

- Docket File TJCarter NRC PDR- Gray File (ORB #2) '

L PDR JBurdoin i Docket No.: 50-255 ORB #4'Rdg' DTondi RReid Glainas

- RIngram 4 ELConner RSilver l Consumers Power Company ACtorney, OELD ATTH: fir. David 81xel DZiemann Nuclear Licensing Administrator HSmith 212. West liichigan Avenue OI&E'(3)

Jackson, flichigan 4';201 DEisenhut TERA, DSB i Gentlemen: ACRS (16)

JRBuchanan On August 2,1978, representatives from utilities using Combustion Engineering (CE) NSSS and from CE met in Bethesda, fieryland to discuss the action requirements in the event of Reactor Protection System (RPS) channel inoperability. . Enclosure 1 is the minutes of this meeting. The meeting was held to clarify our position on this subject as presented in our letter dated January 18, 1978 and to gain an understanding of your position as indicated in your response dated Harch 21, 1978. This same subject had been discussed pre-vlously on flarch 16, 1976.

In our previons correspondence, we requested that you submit an appli-cation for license amendment to change the Palisttes l Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.17 to require inoperable RPS channels to be placed in the " tripped" status within one hour after being declared inoperable. We further stated that you could request that we undertake a specific facility review of your RPS to determine the~ suitability of operating the RPS in a trio-out-of-three logic.

Your response requested such a specific facility RPS review and we propose that the Palisades RPS review be scheduled for this month. {

The exact date will be coordinated through your Operating Reactor {

1 Branch Project flanager (ORPil). Enclosure 2 is the RPS review 1tems that will be of interest to our review team.

1 j

As you know, our staff has conducted the RPS review at the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie units. A copy of the resultant Safety Evaluation fcr St. Lucie, pr.:sonting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5),

is provided for your infomation at, Enclosure 3. Our conclusion was i

, ff$&~A~k~ &

i

(

L_-_ _ - .

p.

, #" f ur Consumers Power Company l l .

! that allowing indefinite bypass of one of the four P.PS is not i justified, but since the four channel CE system does have some '

independence, bypasting for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during testing or maintenance of one RPS channel is justified.

As an alternative to the onsite flRC review of your RPS, we will consider issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS of your RPS if you provide an application including documentation '

of your'RPS sisilarity to thos? of Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie. Any such application should be submitted within 30 days of the date of this letter.

i Si ncerely,

}

I i

, Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief l Operating Reactors Branch #2

! Division of Operating Reactors Enlosures:

1. Deeting Sunnary

2. Review Iten

3. Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:, See next page E

I 4

l ,, N 9kWk%

I V o,,,c . , ORB #4: DOR _. 0 AR C P/ 'i lD08 C-0RBf2 D.QR . A. ..: ...C:.0RBf.4.:DDR

.om m , ELC[n M f.. R3ilV9r GL .nas DZiemann- [BGedh V

..RReid om * ..9/l3/.7.8.. . 9//.3D8.... . 9/j.M78.... .. 945/.78_.- .9/ .../1B ... s .

f ,, .. 9/ }'l/.78...

i Sc ronu ns (p-u) neu ouo h us .. =omune mem= ovenem 'm - m m

t W =

g .- !

v:_ & 7

~_

DISTRIBUTION: !

Docket File Glainas ;

, NRC PDR DTondi i L PDR JBurdoin !

Rdg !

' Docket No.: 50-336

! RIngram ENHHMMX ELConner Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Attorney, OELD ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President 01&E (3) ,

fJuclear Engineering & Operations DEisenhut P. O. Box 270 ACRS (16)

Hartford, Connecticut 06101 B ha an Gentlemen: TJCarter ,

Gray File en August 2,1978, representatives from utilities using Combustion Engineering (CE) NSSS and froni CE met in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the action requironents in the event of Reactor Protection System (RPS) channel inoperability. Enclosure 1 is the minutes of this meeting. The meeting was held to clarify our position on this subject as presented in our letter dated August 3,1977 and to gain an understanding of your position as indicated in your response dated St.ptember 21, 1977. This same subject had been discussed pre-viously on Marcn 16, 1976.

4 In our previous correspondence, we requested that you sebsit an appli-cation for license amendment to change the Hillstone, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.3.1.1 to require inoperable RPS channels to be placed in the "trippeo" status within one hour af ter being declared inoperable. We further stated that you could request that we under-take a specific facility review of your RPS to determine the suitabil- I ity of operating the RPS in a two-out-of-three logic. Your response '

requested such a specific facility RPS review and we propose that the Hillstone, Unit 2 RPS review be scheduledfor the month of October 1978.

l The exact date will be coordinated through your Operating Reactor Branch Project Manager (ORPM). Enclosure 2 is the RPS review items that will l be of interest to our review team.

I i

As you know, our staff has conducted the RPS review at the Calvert Clif fs and St. Lucie units. A copy of the resultant Safety Evaluation for St. Lucie, presenting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5),

l 1s provided for your intoraation as Enclosure 3. Our conclusion was l

/-

f, ja A gh?" ,

49lM" Hortheast Huclear Energy Co.- .2-that allowing, indefinite bypass of:one of thel four' RPS is' not

. justified but since the four channel CE system does have some.

independence, bypassing for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months ' during testing or maintenance of one RPS channe1 Lis justified.

i As an alternative' to the onsite NRC' review of your RPS. .we will consider issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS of your'RPS if you provide-an application including documentation

'of.ynur RPSl similarity to those of Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie. Any

-3 such application should be submitted within 45 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely, ,

1 J

l Robert 14. Reid, Chief

. Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of. Operating . Reactors j 3

l Enlosures.

1. 11eeting Summary >

2. Review iteu l

3. - Safety Evaluation i cc w/ enclosures: See next page 3 1

l

+

'I i

I A AI I o,ne. ORB #4:00R kFSBgDOR AD /:COR C-0RB#4:D0R.

sunnaus , NCo GLtifas_._,.. BGrTniEs ,. ItReid e fdlf k . _

DAtr >

( . .. . . / 70 _.9[I [70 . 9b. .I2b - .j k ... p NOC PORM SIS (9-76) NRCM 0240 W un s.oovsarmany raiwreme orricas non-eas.sas

r

,/ w.ame A, :ls, 4 ^*

mf @nUW ..~

r DISTRIBUTION- !

Docket File Glainas !

NRC PDR DTondi.

l L PDR JBurdoin !

Docket No.: 50-309_

N/i Rdg RIngram CNel son ELConner

! Yankee Atomic Electric Company r , OELD ATTH: Mr. Robert il. Groco DEisenhut Licensing Engineer 20 Turnpike Road ACRS (16)

Westboro, Itassachusetts 01581 8 h an Gentlemen: IATJCarter Gray File On August 2,1978, representatives from utilities using Combustion Engineering (CE) NSSS and from CE met in Bethesda, Maryland to

! discuss the action requirer.ents in the event of Reactor Protection System (DPS) channel inoperability. Enclosure 1 is the ninutes of this meeting. The meeting was held to clarify our position on this subject as presented in our letter dated October 26, 1977 and to gain an understanding of your position as indicstol in your response dated December 1,1977. This same subject had .co discussed pre-vlously on March 16, 1976.

i In our previous correspondence, we requested that you submit an appli-cation for license anendment to change the Itaine Yankee Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.9 to require inoperaole RPS channels to be placed in the " tripped" status within one hour after being declared inoperable. Uo further stated that you could request that we under-take a specific facility review of your RPS to determine the suitabil-ity of opcrating the RPS in a two-out-of-three logic. Your response requested such a specific facility RPS review and we propose that the

. flaine Yankee RPS review be'scheduledfor the month of October 1978. j The exact date will be coordinated through your Operating' Reactor Branch !

Project Hanager (ORPil). Enclosure 2 is the RPS review items that will ; )

be of interest to our review team. '

l

\

As-you know, our staff has conducted the RPS review at the Calvert i Clif fs and St. Lucie units. A copy of the resultant Safety Evaluation j for St. Lucie, presenting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5), j is provided for your information as Enclosure 3. Our conclusion was i j j

-DhIb[Ik 7 l

_______a

k f f Yankee Atomic Electric Co. f 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 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during testing or maintenance of one RPS channel is justified.

As an alternative to the onsite NRC review of your RPS, we will consider issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS of your RPS if you provide an application including documentation of your RPS similarity to those of Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucico Any such application should be submitted within 45 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely, Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors Enlosures:

1. Meeting Sumary

2. Review Item 5

3. Safety Evaluation t

cc w/ enclosures: See next page 4

q;fa- A j T-Mdt.2 e \ n

,,,,,,, ORB #4:D0J ORB #,4Agdt CdSS: DOR A9dN:Ndd C-0RB#4:00R l ,,,,,,,,,, ELC[rMf CNelkM % GLidas hj@ies# RReid bb/Y

, , , , , 9/ly78 9/ D/78 _)(/78 9 9//f/78 9/ /78 'fIJ f_

KdRM $18 (9 76) NRCM 0240 N u. s. oovannasant ementimo orrscai ss7e- eas.es4

I m- ~%

.> a:

.: w ,

9

!' DISTRIBUTION: l i Docket File Glainas

! NRC PDR DTondi t l'

L PDR JBurdoin Docket No.: 50-285 ORB #4 Rdg RReid RIngram PErickson MConner ,

Ocaha Public Power District Attorney, OELD ATTH: Pr. Theodore E. Short 01&E (3)

Division Hanager - Production DEisenhut Operations TERA, DSB l 1623 Harney Street JRBuchanan Onaha, Nebraska 68102 ACRS - (16)

TCarter Gentlemen: ' Gray File 3 On August 2,1978, representatives from utilities using Combustion Engineering (CE) NSSS and from CE met in Dethesda, Maryland to discuss the action requirements in the event of Reactor Protection System (RPS) channel inoperability. Enclosure 1 is the minutes of this meeting. The meeting was held to clarify our position on this subject as presented in our letter dated December 7,1977 and to gain an understanding of your position as indicated in your response dated January 31, 1978. This same subject had been discussed pre-viously on Itarch 16, 1976, t

j In our previous correspondence, we requested that you submit an appli-f cation for license amendment to change the Ft. Calhoun Technical j Specifications (TS) Section 2.15 to require inoperable RPS channels to

! be placed in the " tripped" status within one hour after being declared l inoperable. We further stated that you could request tnat we under-l take a specific facility review of your RPS to determine the suitabil-

! ity of operating the RPS in a two-out-of-three logic. Your response j requested such a specific facility RPS review and we propose that the j

Ft. Calhoun RPS review be scheduledfor the month of November 1978.

j. The exact date will be coordinated through your Operating Reactor Branch 4 Project Manager (ORPi-1). Enclosure 2 is the RPS review itens that will be of interest to our review team, ,

l f As you know, our staff has conducted the RPS review at the Calvert '

j Cliffs and St. Lucie units. A copy of the resultant Safety Evaluation for St. Lucie, presenting the finding of the RPS review (pages 3 to 5),

is proviced for your infomation as Enclosure 3. Our conclusion was

' ~

Ykf Y $ W' ,/

-, - ~ -

p a. * ~'

4b;f. Q; y.

.y:y&f!; Q J[ ,3 p 9

?

l Omaha'Public Power District that' allowing indefinite bypass of' one of _ the ~ four_ 'RPSl1s not '

--justified, but since the 'four channel CE system does .have some ,

. independence, bypassing for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during. testing or maintenance l

): of one RPS channel is justifled.

l i l

As.an alternative to the onsite NRC. review of your RPS, we will- !

consider issuance of the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie type TS L _ !

. of your RPS:if you provido_ an application including documentation . i of.your RPS similarity to those of Calvert Cliffs-and:St. Lucie. Any .i

'such application ~sh'ould be' submitted within'45' days of the date of l

. this letter. ._

l i Sincerely,- l Jj

.I Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Roactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors Enlosures:- 1

1. . tieeting Summary '

2. Review Item l

3. Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures: See next page j i

t l

T i1k ORB #4: DOR ORB #4: DOR V5B: DOR AU t;aP C-ORB #4: DOR orric > ,,, m 4 m /~) \ /

...,,.... ELC M .N PEric%sdnC GDikas [r,( st./ RReid ,fyjjl/u i

i on,. * . ._._

Q 78 g/g78 y {78 ' @T 7 #8 j,(

L x2c romu sis 4976) wacu 024o

u. .. . o v . . . . . ., . , ~rio . o r r.. ., . . .. _ . . .

/

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ML20238E702

Text

Navigation menu

Search