ML17338A839

Summary of 790529 Meeting W/Fl Power & Light Co Re Containment Purge During Normal Plant Operation

ML17338A839
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	06/05/1979
From:	Grotenhuis M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7907110694
Download: ML17338A839 (17)

Text

e a~sea Docket Nos.

50-250 ana LICENSEE:

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (FPL)

FACILITY:

TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS.

3 AND 4

SUBJECT:

=

SUHHARY OF HEETING HELD ON ffAY 29, 1978-lR~

TO DISCUSS CONTAINMENT PURGE DURING NORfQL OPERATION J

Background:

Pl ant On November 28, 1978 we sent a letter to FPL regarding containment purge during normal plant operation.

The letter requested a committment fn 30 days to cease all containment purge during operation'or provfde a justi-fication for continued purging at Turkey Point.

Specifically three options were given:

"(I) Propose an amendment to the plant Technical Specifications based upon the enclosed'model Technical Specification, or 4

(2) If you plan to justify limited purging, you must propose a

Technical Specification change limiting purgfrig during operation

'o 90 hfurs per year as descrfbed fn the enclosed Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4, Revision l.

Your justification nust include a

demonstatfon (by test or by test and analysis similar to that required by Standard Revfew Plan 3.9.3) of the abflity of the contafnnent

'solation valves to close under. postulated design basis accident conditions.

Within thirty days of receipt of this letter, you are requested to provide a schedule for completion of your evaluation justifying continuatfon of limited purging during power operation.

+g Op, 4g (3) If you plan to justify unlfmfted purging you need not,propose a

Technical Specification Change at this tfme.

You riust, heaver, provide the basis for purging and a schedule for responding to the issues relating to purging during nornal operation as described fn the enclosed Standard Revfei) Plan Section 6.2.4; Revision 1, and thM associated Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4.

As discussed fn these docunents, purging during normal operation may be permitted ff the purge isolation valves are capable of closing against the dynanic forces of a design basis loss-of-coolant accident.

Also, basis for rriCa~

(I ovRHAl4d~

I oATC~

5RC POEM 518 (9.76) NRCM 0240

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~

~ ~

~

~ 0 Ii~ 0 u.s. oevsssacawr taisriso os vicar lions

- see - leo

[

I e

ll

~

C

~ ~

P 3

-.P

) FQ

1 p

tieeting Summary for

, Turkey Point Units-2 8 3 V

>>2>> j

, unlimited purging musst include an evaluation of the impact of

, purging during operation on ECCS performance, an evaluation of the radiological consequences of any design basjs accident requiring containment isolation occur ring during purge operations, and an evaluation of containment purge and isolation instrumentation and control circuit designs."

t<ithin thirty days of recipt of. this letter, you are requested to provide a schedule fot completion of your evaluation justifying continuation of unlimited purging during power oper ation."

Pending completion of the t<RC staff review of the justification for continued purging in (2) or (3) above, you should commit to either cease purging or limit purging to an absolute minimum, not to exceed 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year.

In addition the letter also requested the following:

"Whether or not you plan to justify purging, you should review the design of all safety actuation signal circuits which in>>

corporate a manual override feature to ensure that overriding of one safety actuation signal does not also cause the bj'pass of any other safety actuation signal, that'sufficient physical features are provided to facilitate adequate administrative

controls, and that tjie use of each such manual override is annunciated at the system level for every system impacted.

Hithin thirty days of receipt of this letter, you are requested to provide (1) 'the results of your review of override circuitry and.{2) a schedule for the development of any, design or pro-cedural changes imposed or planned to assure correction of any non-conforming circuits.

Until you.have ~view circuitry to the extent necessary to verify that operation of a bypass Mill affect no safety functions other than those analyzed and dis-

'ussed on your dockets, do not bypass that-signal..

Our office of Inspection and Enforcement >vill verify that you have in-augurated administtatfve controls to prevent proper manual defeat of safety actuation signals or part of its regular inspection program."

~ ~

~ ~i

~ ~I ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

OATE~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

INC PM45f 318 (976) NRCM 0249 Q U 4, OOVONNMONT ~IIINTINOOPPICCI I ~ T ~

tO ~

7 ~ 4

~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~

\\

~

~ ~ ~ ~

0

~we I

RO t,

J '

1 C

Meeting Summary for Turkey Pqint Units 2 5 3,

~3 1

1IN 1

I s.l On January 5, 1979 FPL responded by s~ying that (1) an engineering review was in pogress but that an option had not yet been selected and (2) the design of the safety actuation signal circuits have been reviewed and the review confirmed that ekisting physical features adequately facilitate admini strati ve control.

On February 1, 1979 FPL responded further by indicating that option 3, unlimited containment purging during operation, had been chosen

however, that letter neither provided the justification to support unlimited purging nor committed to an interim limit as requested in our November 28, 1978 letter.

The licensee proposed to delay submittal of the justifying evaluating support of utllimited purging until August 1, 1979.

On Hay 18, 1979 a meeting was requested with FPL to further discuss con-tainment afr releases during operation (purging, venting, etc.)

An agenda (attachment

1) telecopied to the licensee outlining matters to be discussed.

The meeting was convened on ftay 29, 1979 at 2:00 pm in Bethesda.

The attendees are listed in attachment'2.

IIee~IIn Su~Inter Y

The meeting was opened by N. Grotenhuis, NRC; who stated the purpose'of the neeting, namely, to discuss the l.ack of an FPL committment to con-tainment purge limitation in general and the details given in,the telecopied agenda (attachment

1) in particular.

Staff introductory remarks were given by E. Reeves, L. Nichols, C. Grimes, A. Schwencer and D. T. Beard which, in general covered the material discussed above under. "Background."

After an FPL general response the meeting was broken into two groups, one to discuss agenda 'items (1), (2),

~

(3) and (6) the other to address agenda items (5) and (6). tlost but not all of the information sought under level (I) through (6) was provided by-the time of the staff caucus,

however, FPL still had not made the commitment regarding a limitation of purge venting during operation which we had first requested fn our November 28, 1978 letter.

During the NRC staff caucus the following positions evolved:

OI I <Ca~

NNNAMIW OATS'CK FORM 518 (976) NRCM 0240 U

~

00

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

ALIIS

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~

00'

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

Q U e, 4@VISNNMNNT TNINTINO ONNICNI 1070 eee

' ~ 0

h' J

r 1 ~ 't L

1 lf

>,,-r.Meeting 5'pmmary for

/~! Turkey'ossst vnsts 2

2! 3i I+r'.

Full FP8L responses to requests contained in the November 28, 1978 letter should be mandated by the NRC, in a manner and direction to be decided'n the next week or ten 4ays.

2.

FPL should be requested to continue'collecting information, in particular,costs in both man-rem and dollars, of reduced purging/

,,venting, hp( purging/venting requirements,,could be overlapped, etc.

s 3.'PL.should

.be requested to submft the additional valve data not presented at the meeting.

4.

FPL should be requested to supply a breakdown of purging/venting time as a function of reactor operating status.

5.

FPL.should be requested to give a status report on the continous purge justification evaluation that had been scheduled for completions as late as August 1, 1979.

Following the caucus FPL was informed of our intent to procede quickly with the position in item (1) above and was alo requested to provide the information in items (2) through (5) above.

Any information in response to the above requests would need to he received in time to affect the staff decision.

In addition FPL, when requested to commit to a 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year accumilated purge/vent time for the interim period, indicated that a response on this matter would be forthcoming with the rest of the information in one week (by June',

1979).

Attachments:

1.Containment

Purge, Vent Valves 2.List of Attendees H. Grotenhuis, Pr oject Manager Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Operating Reactors cc:

w/encl ure

'""'"""SE!t!"l1L.."p~ge------'..QELQEQ.l...........

MGrotenhuis/j

~

s%7 go

~

~ ~,

csrrscs~

clsstrsAses~

T]4AtA~P OAVa~

NEC PORN 310 (9.76) NRCM 0249 u.o. oovnn<<Mss<<r ms<<rs<<o or's sesss sert

~ oeo ree

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

0 j

I S

~S AEQUI+

+40 rP C

Oc II 0'y*y4 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHWCTON. D. C. 20566 Docket Nos.

50-250 and 50-251 LICENSEE:

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (FPL)

FACILITY:

TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS.

3 AND 4

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 29, 1978 TO DISCUSS CONTAINMENT PURGE DURING NORMAL OPERATION

Background:

Plant On November 28, 1978 we sent a letter to FPL regarding containment purge during normal plant operation.

The letter requested a committment in 30 days to cease all containment purge during operation or provide a justi-fication for continued purging at Turkey Point.

Specifically three'ptions were given:

"(1) Propose an amendment to the plant Technical Specificatio'ns based upon the enclosed model Technical Specification, or (2) If you plan to justify limited purging, you must propose a

Technical Specification change limiting purging during operation to 90 hiurs per year as described in the enclosed Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4, Revision 1.

Your justification must include a

demonstation (by test or by test and analysis similar to that required by Standard Review Plan 3.9.3) of the ability of the containment isolation valves to close under postulated design basis accident conditions.

Within thirty days of receipt of this letter, you are requested to provide a schedule for completion of your evaluation justifying continuation of limited purging during power operation.

(3) If you plan to justify unlimited purging you need not propose a

Technical Specification Change at this time.

You must,

however, provide the basis for purging and a schedule for responding to the issues relating to purging during normal operation as described in the enclosed Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4, Revision 1, and the associated Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4.

As discussed in these documents, purging during normal operation may be permitted if the purge isolation valves are capable of closing against the dynamic forces of a design basis loss-of-coolant accident.

Also, basis for

Meeting Summary for Turkey Point Units 2 8 3 unlimited purging musst include an evaluation of the impact of purging during operation on ECCS performance, an evaluation of the radiological consequences of any design basis accident requiring containment isolation occurring during purge operations, and an evaluation of containment purge and isolation instrumentation and control circuit designs.

Within thirty days of recipt of this letter, you are requested to provide a schedule for completion of your evaluation justifying continuation of unlimited purging during power operat ion. "

Pending completion of the NRC staff review of the justification for continued purging in (2) or (3) above, you should commit to either cease purging or limit purging to an absolute minimum, not to exceed 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br />s~

per year.

E In addition the letter also requested the following:

"Whether or not you plan to justify purging, you should review the design of all safety actuation signal circuits which in-'orporate a manual override feature to ensure that overriding of one safety actuation signal does not also cause the bypass of any other safety actuation signal, that sufficient physical

'eatures are provided to facilitate adequate administrative

controls, and that the use of each such manual override is annunciated at the system level for every system impacted.

Within thirty days of receipt of this letter, you are requested'.

to provide (1) the results of your review of override circuitry

'nd (2) a schedule for the development of any design or pro-

,cedural changes imposed or planned to assure correction of any non-conforming circuits.

Until you have review circuitry to the extent necessary to verify that operation of a bypass will affect no safety functions other than those analyzed and dis-cussed on your dockets, do not bypass that signal.

Our office of Inspection and Enforcement, will verify that you have in-augurated administrative controls to prevent proper manual defeat of safety actuation signals or 'part of its regular inspection program."

Meeting Summary for Turkey Point Units 2

& 3 On January 5,

1979 FPL responded by saying that (1) an engineering review was in pogress but that an option had not yet been selected and (2) the design of the safety actuation signal circuits have been reviewed and the review confirmed that existing physical features adequately facilitate administrative control.

On February 1,

1979 FPL responded further by indicating that option 3, unlimited containment purging during operation, had been chosen

however, that letter neither provided the justification to support unlimited purging nor committed to an interim limit as requested in our November 28, 1978 letter.

The licensee proposed to delay submittal of the justifying evaluating support of unlimited purging until August 1, 1979.

ll On May 18, 1979 a meeting was requested with FPL to further discuss con-tainment air releases during operation (purging, venting, etc.)

An agenda (attachment

1) telecopied to the licensee outlining matters to be discussed.

The meeting was convened on May 29, 1979 at 2:00 pm in Bethesda.

The attendees are listed in attachment 2.

~MI S

1 Th'e meeting was opened by M.'rotenhuis, NRC, who stated the purpose of the meeting, namely, to discuss the lack of an FPL committment to cori-tainment purge limitation in general and the details given in the telecopied agenda (attachment

1) in particular.

Staff introductory remarks were given by E. Reeves, L. Nichols, C. Grimes, A. Schwencer and J.

T. Beard which, in general covered the material discussed above under "Background."

After an FPL general response the'eeting was broken into two groups, one to discuss agenda items (1), (2),

(3) and (6), the other to address agenda items (5) and (6). Most but not all of the information sought under level (1) through (6) was provided by the time of the staff caucus,

however, FPL still had not made the commitment regarding a limitation of purge venting during operation whi'ch we had first requested in our November 28, 1978 letter.

During the NRC staff caucus the following positions evolved:

Meeting Summary for Turkey Point Units 2 5 3 4

1.

Full FPAL responses to requests contained in the November 28, 1978 letter should be mandated by the NRC, in a manner and direction to be decided in the next week or ten days.

2.

FPL should be requested to continue collecting information, in particular costs in both man-rem and dollars, of reduced purging/

venting, how purging/venting requirements could be overlapped, etc.

3.

FPL should be requested to submit the additional valve data not presented at the meeting.

4.

FPL should be requested to supply a breakdown of purging/venting I

time as a function of reactor operating status.

5.

FPL should be requested to give a status report on the continous purge justification evaluation that had been scheduled for completions as late as August 1, 1979.

Following the caucus FPL was informed of our intent to procede quickly with the position in item (1) above and was alo requested to provide'he information in items (2) through (5) above.

Any information in response to the above requests would need to be received in time to affect the staff decision.

In addition FPL, when requested to commit to a 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year accumilated purge/vent time for the interim period, indicated that a response on this matter would be forthcoming with the rest of the information in one week (by June 6, 1979).

M. Grotenhuis, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Operating Reactors, Attachments:

1.Containment

Purge, Vent Valves 2.List of Attendees cc:

w/enclosure See next pag

RE:

COHTAINi~> NT PURGE e VENT VALVES, AND ELECTRICAL 0'a.:8 ~l" C IRCU I ",8'8 5

ihe iNAC staff requested F P l-to attend a

me ting in Hetbesda, Maryland on in Room ~i.io

/;cop<

The purpose o-the meeting is to have the 1jcense re=.ese~t=t':ves

~ u+9VA7r~g PE'Ouse~~~~~~

discuss their purge and vent valve designs and associ=ted el c.rical override circuitry designs.

Licensees should bring t."

he see:ing, as a minimum, the fol'lowing supporting information:

(1)

Valve and valve actuatiort information as shown on. the attached forms.

(2)

A sketch similar to the attached showing a11 purge or vent line arrangements.

. (3)

Procurement specifications, quality control reccrcs, and vendor verification and test records for ea"h d'.fferent type of purge or vent valve.

{4)

Electrical schematic diagrams for all purge or vert valve control circuitry.

(5)

Electrical schematic diagrams for all Enoineered Safeguards Features Actuation Signal circuitry which r.=ve override/

bypass/reset capability.

(d)

PuAr,d yea Yze'r ~rA~PPp~ Aepurzrmswj s; Licensee personnel should include technical or engineering staff including vendor support personnel, if considered necessary.

Detailed engineering discussions relating to valve operability and electrical circuitry will be held.

g e Q ~)jf~ifVZf Pr '-"c-'~n=o~r Operating Reac.ors Sr

".c.'-. ='g, DQR

ATTACHMENT 2 M. Grotenhuis C. I. Grimes K. R.

Wichman G. D. Whittier G.

E. Liebler A. Schwencer*

T. Quay G. Knighton J. Kerrigan P.

W. Hughes H.

N. Paduano L. R. Casella

f. M. McKenna

f. G. Adensam R.

V. Baldwin R.

P.

Rumble J.

T. Beard E. A. Reeves*

T. Restivo K. 0. Smith L. Nichols B. Grimes*

LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC/ORB1 PSYB/NRC EB/DOR FPL FPL ORBl/DOR EEB/DOR EEB/DOR PSB/DOR FPL FPL FPL RSB/DOR PSB/DOR BECHTEL LLL NRC/PSB NRC/DOR BNL/Grumman Aero BNL/GAC DOR AD/DOR

• Part Time Only.

Meeting Summary for Turkey Point Units 3

8 4

Docket Files NRC PDR Local PDR ORB1 Reading NRR Reading H. Denton E.

Case V. Stello D. Eisenhut B. Grimes R. Vollmer A. Schwencer D. Ziemann

,P.

Check G. Lainas D. Davis B. Grimes T. Ippolito R. Reid V. Noonan G., Knighton D. Brinkman Project Manager OELD OIBE (3)

C. Parri sh ACRS (16)

NRC Participants J.

Buchanan TERA Licensee Mr. Henry )aeae~.

Plant Manager Turkey f'oint:"ia"-.

Floriaa vower ana Liaht Company PE O.

Box D131 Miami, Ftor>az 331:"

Mr. Jack Snrei-Office of tne vuoiic Counsel Room 4, ttoiiana Buila>n:

Tallanasseo.

Fioriaa 3230~

Mr.- Rooert cowenstein.

Esaui re Lowenstein.

newman.

Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue.

N.i..

Sui te 12 ~-

Mashinator... ".

2003; Environments i

ana urban Affairs Library F 1 ori aa inte ma tional uni vers i ty Miami,.FIoriaa 3l'=-:

Mr. Norman

~'.. Coil. Esauire

Steel, Hector ana Davis 1400 Soutneas.

First Nationa'ank Bui lai..

Miami-, Floriaa 3'.: