ML040830605
| ML040830605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/2004 |
| From: | Spina J Constellation Energy Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NMP2L 2112, TAC MC0594 | |
| Download: ML040830605 (3) | |
Text
P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, New York 13093 Constellaon Ene Group Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station March 11, 2004 NMP2L 2112 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410 Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Requirements - Technical Specification Amendment Application (TAC NO. MC0594)
Gentlemen:
By letter dated August 22, 2003, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) submitted a proposed change to the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically, NMPNS proposed a revision to TS 3.7.1, "Service Water (SW)
System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," to allow continued operation with short-term elevated UHS temperatures. On October 24, 2003, a telephone conversation was held between NMPNS and the NRC in which verbal responses were provided to several NRC questions regarding the amendment application. By letter dated November 10, 2003, the Commission issued a formal Request for Additional Information regarding this conversation. Our letter dated January 12, 2004 provided the requested information.
On February 25, 2004, a second telephone conversation was held between NMPNS and the NRC to discuss certain information provided in our January 12, 2004 submittal. The attachment to this letter documents the clarifications made during the February 25, 2004 discussions.
Sincerely,
.'-4 James A. Spina Vice President Nine Mile Point JAS/JT/bjh Attachment
Page 2 NMP2L 2112 cc:
Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. G. K. Hunegs, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. P. S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, NRR (2 copies)
Mr. John P. Spath, NYSERDA STATE OF NEW YORK
- TO WIT:
COUNTY OF OSWEGO I, James A. Spina, being duly sworn, state that I am Vice President, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, and that I am duly authorized to execute and file this request on behalf of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained in this document are true and correct. To the extent that these statements are not based on my personal knowledge, they are based upon information provided by other Nine Mile Point employees and/or consultants. Such information has been reviewed in accordance with company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
Subscribed and sworn before me, a Not ublic in and for the State of New York and County of Oswego, this 1i'd day of j t i
, 2004.
WITNESS my Hand and Notarial Seal:
Notary Public >
A.
My Commission Expires:
SANDRA A. OSWALD Date 31 It )Ot No. 01088032276 Commsson Ebxpi~ress rjq
ATTACHIMENT Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS), Unit 2 License Amendment Request (TAR)
Regarding Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Requirements Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station's, LLC (NMPNS) letter dated January 12, 2004, Response #2, stated that because the suppression pool temperature is expected to be greater than the design limit, NMPNS would either 1) evaluate a reduction in the allowed percentage of heat exchanger tubes which could be plugged, thereby increasing the system's calculated heat removal capability, 2) revise the applicable analysis to delete unnecessary conservatisms thereby decreasing the calculated suppression pool temperature, and/or 3) raise the heat exchanger performance requirement. The NRC indicated that they could not complete their review nor finalize the subject safety evaluation until an option had been selected. NMPNS replied that it is our intention to implement Option #1.
NMPNS Response #3, Items a, b, c, and e, indicated that current evaluations supported our conclusions and that calculations would be updated to confirm acceptability prior to implementation of the approved amendment. The NRC questioned whether the confirmatory calculations should have been completed prior to the amendment application submittal. NMPNS clarified that evaluations have been performed to confirm that the proposed change is acceptable.
Our intent was to inform the NRC that existing calculations would be updated to formally incorporate the 84 TF change after the amendment was issued by the NRC.