ML022620183

Revised Draft RAI Re. Refueling Interlock

ML022620183
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/12/2002
From:	Tam P NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Distel D, Hufnagel J Exelon Corp
Tam P, NRR/DLPM, 415-1451
References
TAC MB2893
Download: ML022620183 (2)

Text

From: Peter Tam To: INTernet:David.distel@exeloncorp.com; INTernet:John.Hufnagel@exeloncorp.com Date: 9/12/02 4:10PM

Subject:

Oyster Creek: Revised draft RAI re. refueling interlock (TAC MB2893)

John:

We had a telecon on 8/21/02 to discuss a number of draft questions (reference publicly available e-mail, P. Tam to D. Distel, 8/13/02, Accession No. ML022280432). During the telecon, we agreed to amend the questions. Here they are, as amended:

(1) To prevent criticality during refueling, the refueling interlocks ensure that fuel assemblies are not loaded with any control rod withdrawn. To prevent these conditions from developing, the following are required to be operable: the all-rods-in, the refueling platform position, the refueling platform fuel grapple fuel loaded, the refueling platform trolley frame mounted hoist fuel loaded, the refueling platform monorail mounted hoist fuel loaded, the refueling platform fuel grapple fully retracted position. Are these inputs combined in logic circuits which provide refueling equipment or control rod blocks to prevent operations that could result in criticality during refueling operations? How does an inoperable (disabled) ARI permissive affect the above and your overall refueling operations (e.g., moving the refueling bridge over the core with fuel grapple loaded)?

(2) In the supplemental letter dated June 27, 2002, AmerGen indicated that it would complete the initial testing of the interlock prior to in-vessel fuel movement. The NRC staff finds that refuel interlocks should be tested every seven days to demonstrate that the interlock will function properly when simulated or actual signal indicative of a required condition is injected into the logic. What is the frequency for the refueling interlocks? If the compensatory measures obviate the need for the surveillance, then should the technical specification requirement be removed from the technical specification and controlled administratively?

Provide your basis for keeping or removing the technical specification requirement.

If you can expeditiously and formally respond to these revised questions, we d appreciate that.

Otherwise, you can wait for me to issue the same questions by a formal RAI.

Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e-mail: pst@nrc.gov Tel.: 301-415-1451 CC: Chia-Fu Sheng; Gregory Hatchett Mail Envelope Properties (3D80F4AE.FB3 : 10 : 20510)

Subject:

Oyster Creek: Revised draft RAI re. refueling interlock (TAC MB2893)

Creation Date: 9/12/02 4:10PM From: Peter Tam Created By: PST@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time David Transferred 09/12/02 04:10PM distel (INTernet:David.distel@exeloncorp.

John Transferred 09/12/02 04:10PM Hufnagel (INTernet:John.Hufnagel@exelonco nrc.gov owf2_po.OWFN_DO Delivered 09/12/02 04:10PM CFS CC (Chia-Fu Sheng) Opened 09/12/02 04:20PM GXH CC (Gregory Hatchett) Opened 09/13/02 08:12AM Post Office Delivered Route David INTernet:exeloncorp.

com John INTernet:exeloncorp.

com owf2_po.OWFN_DO 09/12/02 04:10PM nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3218 09/12/02 04:10PM Options Auto Delete: No Expiration Date: None Notify Recipients: Yes Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard To Be Delivered: Immediate Status Tracking: Delivered & Opened