ML070860191
| ML070860191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/2007 |
| From: | Richard Ennis NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-2 |
| To: | Levis W Public Service Enterprise Group |
| Ennis R, NRR/DORL, 415-1420 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD3171, TAC MD3172 | |
| Download: ML070860191 (5) | |
Text
March 29, 2007 Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AMENDMENT REQUEST RE:
TOPICAL REPORT REFERENCES IN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT, SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MD3171 AND MD3172)
Dear Mr. Levis:
By letter dated September 26, 2006, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee) submitted an amendment request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem). The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 6.9.1.9 to remove the revision number and date for the topical reports that contain the analytical methods used in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). The effect of this change is to allow the licensee to use current topical reports, as long as they have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The amendment would also add an NRC-approved topical report to the Salem Unit No. 2 COLR methods.
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). The RAI questions were previously provided in draft form to PSEG via e-mail on February 12, 2007, to ensure that the questions were understandable, the regulatory basis was clear and to determine if the information was previously docketed. A conference call between the NRC staff and the PSEG staff to discuss the questions was held on March 21, 2007. No changes were made to the questions subsequent to the call other than minor editorial changes.
During a telephone call on March 26, 2007, Mr. Jamie Mallon of your staff agreed to provide a response within 45 days of the date of this letter. Please note that if you do not respond to this letter within 45 days or provide an acceptable alternate date in writing, we may reject your application for amendment under the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.108. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301) 415-1420.
Sincerely,
/ra/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Enclosure:
RAI cc w/encl: See next page
ML070860191 OFFICE LPL1-2/PM LPL1-1/LA LPL1-2/BC NAME REnnis SLittle HChernoff DATE 3/29/07 3/28/07 3/28/07
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Dennis Winchester Vice President - Nuclear Assessment PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Thomas P. Joyce Site Vice President - Salem PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. George H. Gellrich Plant Support Manager PSEG Nuclear P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Carl J. Fricker Plant Manager - Salem PSEG Nuclear - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. James Mallon Manager - Licensing 200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. Steven Mannon Manager - Regulatory Assurance P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire PSEG Nuclear - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Township Clerk Lower Alloways Creek Township Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Paul Bauldauf, P.E., Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Mr. Brian Beam Board of Public Utilities 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT TOPICAL REPORT REFERENCES IN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 By letter dated September 26, 2006, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee) submitted an amendment request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 6.9.1.9 to remove the revision number and date for the topical reports that contain the analytical methods used in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). The effect of this change is to allow the licensee to use current topical reports, as long as they have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The amendment would also add an NRC-approved topical report to the Salem Unit No. 2 COLR methods.
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific information requested is addressed below.
1)
Please describe how pre-existing oxidation is factored into the results for maximum (local) oxidation. If pre-existing oxidation was considered to be negligible because all the fuel is fresh fuel, please state that it is all fresh fuel. If pre-existing oxidation is considered in the reported results, or if pre-existing oxidation is not reflected in the results, please provide an estimate of the contribution of the pre-existing oxidation.
2)
Section 4.2 of Attachment 1 to your submittal states that the standard integer break spectrum was used... Please identify the breaks that were calculated and the results (peak cladding temperature (PCT), O2, H2, and a PCT vs time plot) that were obtained for each analyzed break.
3)
The small break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA) analyses results using the COSI version of the NOTRUMP code reflect a significantly reduced PCT versus the previous results. Please discuss and quantify each of the factors contributing to this large benefit.
4)
To show that the referenced generically-approved SBLOCA analysis methodology applies specifically to each of the Salem units, provide a statement, for each unit, that PSEG and its vendor have ongoing processes that assure that the ranges and values of the input parameters for the Salem SBLOCA analyses conservatively bound the ranges and values of the as-operated plant parameters. (The discussion in Section 4.2 of to your submittal does not address the concern regarding the ongoing applicability of the analysis when changes occur in the as-operated plant. For example, one of the items the processes referred to should assure is that the high-pressure injection pumps continue to have sufficient flow capacity at SBLOCA pressures to deliver the flow assumed in the analyses.)
Furthermore, if both Salem plant-specific analyses are based on the same model and/or same analyses, justify that the model or analyses apply to both Salem units. For example, if one of the Salem units design has a different vessel internals design than the other units vessel internals design, the same methodology may apply to both Salem units, but the same model may not apply to both units (i.e., in this case, each unit would have to provide its own plant-specific SBLOCA analysis).