ML16342E165
| ML16342E165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1998 |
| From: | Steven Bloom NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Rueger G PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M98984, TAC-M98985, NUDOCS 9807160254 | |
| Download: ML16342E165 (16) | |
Text
July 7, 1998 Nr. Gregory M. Rueger, ~or Vice President and General Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company Nuclear Power Generation N9B P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONON THE PROPOSED CONVERSION TO THE IMPROVED STANDARDTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIABLOCANYON POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M98984 AND M98985)
Dear Mr. Rueger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing Pacific Gas & Electric Company's proposed license amendment to convert the current technical specifications for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, to the Improved Standard Technical SpeciTications.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company provided their proposed license amendment request by letter dated June 2, 1997.
The staff has reviewed selected portions of the application.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that additional information is needed in Section 2.0, Safety Limits and Section 3.0, Limiting Condition for Operation Applicability/Surveillance Requirement Applicability, as discussed in the enclosure.
Since you worked with three other utilities in preparing your submittal, the enclosure contains the request for additional information (RAI) questions for all four utilities. However, you need only reply to the RAI questions associated with Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, as identified in the table within the enclosure.
To assist the staff in maintaining its review schedule, please respond to the questions pertaining to Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2 within 30 days of the date of this letter. Ifyou have any questions regarding the RAI, please contact me at (301) 415-1313.
Ifall four utilities would like to have a common discussion, a single meeting, or phone call, it can be coordinated by contacting the NRR Lead Project Manager, Timothy J. Polich at (301) 415-1038.
Sincerely, Original Signed By IIilliam Bateman for Steven D. Bloom, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page Document Name:
DCITS.RAI IQM::
/Do.cget PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading EAdensam (EGA1)
WBateman SBloom JLuehman OGC ACRS PGwynn, RIV WJohnson, RIV WBeckner EPeyton OFC PD4-2 NAME SBI DATE 7/
/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY eeo7<aoa54
~e0707 PDR ADGCK 05000275 P
PDR PD4-2
~ey o 7 /Co/98 TSB WBeckner 7/
/98
f l
0 I'
Mr. Gregory M. Rueger July 7, 1998 cc w/encl:
NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower 8 Pavillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064 Dr. Richard Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 1100 11th Street, Suite 311 Sacramento, California 95814 Christopher J. Warner, Esq.
Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, Califor'nia 94120 Ms. Nancy Culver San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace P. O. Box 164 Pismo Beach, California 93448 Mr. Robert P. Powers Vice President and Plant Manager Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 56 Avila Beach, California 93424 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Telegram-Tribune ATTN: Managing Editor 1321 Johnson Avenue P.O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Mr. Truman Burns Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Steve Hsu
. Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services Post Office Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94232 Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee ATTN: Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Legal Counsel 857 Cass Street, Suite D Monterey, California 93940
FOUR LOOP GROUP (FLOG) IMPROVED TS REVIEW COMMENTS SECTION 2.0 - SAFETY LIMITS 2.0-1 NUREG-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs (Callaway [page B 2.0-1])
Comment: The BACKGROUND uses the acronym DNBR. The licensee should include "departure from nucleate boiling ratio" first and then use the acronym DNBR.
FLOG Response:
2.0-2 NUREG-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs (Callaway and Comanche Peak [pages 2.0-3])
Comment:
The SAFETY LIMITSrefer to Figure B 1.1.1-1. This figure was not included in the B 2.1.1 markup of NUREG-1431.
Provide Figure B 1.1.1-1.
FLOG Response:
2.0-3 NUREG-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2.1.2 RCS Pressure SL (All FLOG Plants [Callaway and Diablo Canyon [page B 2.0-8], Comanche Peak [page B 2.0-7], and WolfCreek [page B 2.0-9])
Comment:
The APPLICABLE SAFETY ANALYSES has been revised to include, "...The transient that establishes the required relief capacity, and hence valve size requirements and lift settings, is a turbine trip without a direct reactor trip. Cases with and without pressurizer sunray and PORVs are. analyzed.
Safety valves on the secondary ~ side are assumed to open when the steam pressure reaches the seeende~plant safety valve settings, and-nernineI Main feedwater supply is mainteined-.
boost at the time of turbine trip.
Justify the revised STS Bases 2.1.2 changes.
FLOG Response:
2.0P NURGE-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs (Diablo Canyon [page B 2.0-3])
Comment:
In the SAFETY LIMITVIOLATIONSthe licensee needs to correct, " following SL violation responses are applicable to the reactor core 5h..."
FLOG Response:
2.0-5 NUREG-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs (Diablo Canyon [pages B 2.0-7, B 2.0-8, and B 2.0-9])
Comment: The header markup of Diablo Canyon B 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs (pages B 2.0-7, B 2.0-8, and B 2.0-9) are incorrect. Corect the header for these pages to "RCS Pressure SL, B 2.1.2."
FLOG Response:
2.0-6 NUREG-1431 Bases (markup)
B 2;1.2 REC Pressure SL (WolfCreek [page B 2.0-9])
Comment: The APPLICABILITYstates that, "...The SL is not applicable in MODE 6 because of the, plant conditions making. it unlikely that the RCS can'be pressurized.
The basis of this change is CTS 1.0, Table 1.2 and TSTF-88.
TSTF-88 has not been approved.
IfTSTF-88 is not approved in time for the draft Safety Evaluation (SE) to be prepared, the B 2.1.2, RCS Pressure SL, APPLICABILITYchange willnot be included in the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS).
Justification must be provided for this change.
FLOG Response:
FLOG RAI APPLICABILITYTABLE FOR ITS SECTION 2.0
RAI 0
CALLAWAY COMANCHE PEAK DIABLOCANYON WOLF CREEK 2.0-1 2.0-2 2.0-3 2.0-4 X
X
FOUR LOOP GROUP (FLOG) IMPROVED TS REVIEW COMMENTS SECTION 3.0 - LIMITINGCONDITIONS FOR OPERATION APPLICABILITY/
SURVEILLANCEREQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY 3.0-1 ITS SR 3.0.3 CTS SR 4.0.3 (All FLOG Plants)
DOC 1-20-A Comment: The CTS Markups of CTS SR 4.0.3 for all FLOG plants do not accurately reflect the ITS end product,.SR 3.0.3 (ITS 3.0.3 is compatible with the STS and acceptable).
Correct CTS Markup, or revise ITS Markup and provide justification.
FLOG Response:
3.0-2 ITS SR 3.4.13.2/Administrative Controls Section 5.5.9 CTS 4.0.6.4a (Comanche Peak)
DOC 1-15-A Comment:
The ITS revises the wording of CTS 4.0.6.4a.8.
Is this also applicable to the other FLOG plants in which the location of this paragraph is CTS SR 3/4.4.5; is it generic?,
FLOG Response:
3.0-3 ITS LCO 3.0.5 Bases (All FLOG Plants)
Comment: The STS Bases has been revised to address "the performance of required testing" versus the "performance of SRs," to be consistent with the TS. Submit a TSTF to revise the STS. Suggest that the first instance this wording is to be revised to state, "the performance of required testing including applicable SRs," since testing to restore equipment to an operable state willfrequently include the performance of SRs.
FLOG Response:
3.0%
ITS SR 3.0.2 Bases (All FLOG Plants)
Comment:
Justify the revised STS SR 3.0.2 Bases.
The STS provides an explanation for the inapplicability; the ITS does not.
FLOG Response:
~ 3.0-5 ITS LCO 3.0.1 8 3.0.2 CTS 3.0.1 8 3.0.2 (All FLOG Plants)
DOC 1-01-A'omment:
The markup of CTS 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 do not agree with the markup of STS LCO 3.0.1 and LCO 3.0.2. The markup of STS LCO 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are correct.
Revise the CTS markup.
FLOG Response:
3.0-6 ITS LCO 3.0.4 CTS 3.0.4 (All FLOG Plants)
DOC 1-02-LS1 Comment:
The markup of CTS 3.0.4 does not agree with the markup of STS LCO 3.0.4. The markup of STS LCO 3.0.4 is correct.
Revise the CTS markup.
FLOG Response:
3.0>>7 ITS LCO 3.0.4 Bases (Diablo Canyon)
Comment:
The redline/strikeout markup of the STS LCO 3.0.4 Bases is incorrect. Correct the markup of the STS LCO 3.0.4 Bases.
FLOG Response:
~\\
FLOG RAI APPLICABILITYTABLE FOR ITS SECTION 3.0.
RAI¹ 3.0-1 3.0-2 3.0-3 3.0-4 3.0-5 3.0-6
.3.0-7 DIABLO CANYON X
COMANCHE PEAK WOLF CREEK CALLAWAY X
X X
C
~
~
E i