ML17059A855
| ML17059A855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1995 |
| From: | Edison G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sylvia B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-M91221, NUDOCS 9506290047 | |
| Download: ML17059A855 (12) | |
Text
1
~P,R REGS~
(4
~o Cy Cl O $
YQ
~O
+***+
UNITED STATES
'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 15, 1995 Hr. B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President, Nuclear Niagara Hohawk Power Corporation Nine Hile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT:
NINE HILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO.
1 REQUEST"'FOR CLARFICIATION AND FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHATION (TAC NO. H91221)
Dear Hr. Sylvia:
The purpose of this letter is (1) to request clarification of your intent and basis for your license amendment proposal regarding instrument calibration frequency and fuel cladding integrity limits, and (2) to request additional information.
In a letter dated December 23, 1994, you submitted a request to amend the technical specifications for fuel cladding integrity limits and for certain instrumentation.
A conference call on Hay 16, 1995, with D. Baker and others of your staff identified two areas of concern.
The first involves a portion of the basis for your submittal.
General Electric Report NEDC-31336, which the NRC staff has previously approv'ed, permits an 18-month surveillance test interval for flow transmitters.
However, Attachment C (GE-NE-208-22-1193) to your December 23,
- 1994, amendment submittal proposes a methodology permitting a 30-month surveillance test frequency for flow transmitters; the NRC staff has not previously approved such a methodology.
Staff review of the latter methodology will take considerable time and will extend our review of your amendment proposal.
We request you clarify whether it is your intent to rely upon the latter methodology, necessitating a significant expansion of our review.
The second area of concern identified in the conference call is the need for additional information.
Specific questions are included in the enclosure.
These questions were provided to D. Baker of your staff on June 2, 1995.
This requirement affects 9 or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not.subject to the Office of Hanagement and Budget Review under P.L.96-511.
'9506290047 9'506i5
', PDR
'..ADGCK 05000220 j
P PDR ItIRCRIKINNER ed%
B. Sylvia June 15, 1995 Please provide your response by July 15,
- 1995, so that we can continue our review consistent with your schedular needs.
Sincerely, Docket No. 50-220 Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Hanager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request For Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page
~ I
B. Ralph Sylvia Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No.
1 CC; Hark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston 5 Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Super visor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382
- Oswego, NY 13126 Hr. Louis F. Storz Vice President Nuclear Generation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 126
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, NY 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Hr. William Valentino, President New York State
- Energy, Research, and Development Authority 2 Rockefeller Plaza
- Albany, NY 12223 Hr. Richard B. Abbott Unit 1 Plant Manager Nine Hile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Hr. David K. Greene Manager Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Hr. Paul D.
Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service Power Division, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, NY 12223 Hr. Hartin J. HcCormick, Jr.
Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment and Support Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093
I
Cs E UEST FOR DD ON I FORMATION OR NINE MILE POINT "NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO.
1 TECHNICAL SPECI ICATION C ANGE RE VEST DATED DECEMBER 3
1994 ttachment Sect'on
- 2. 1.
The word "trip setting" is changed to "analytical limit" in the "specification" part and not in the "applicability" part of this section.
The relationship provided in the specification only established the nominal trip set point, same as the "limiting Safety System Setting,"
and allowable value, without identifying the analytical limit.
Does the General Electric (GE) calculation establish the analytical limit, and what are those values for APRM flow biased scram and rod block?
The proposed changes to the bases for 3.6.2 and 4.6.2 indicate that the set point definition includes a value for the analytical limit.
This statement does not define and provide the value of analytical limit.
Table 4.6.2 Although not identified as "biased by recirculation flow," the APRM upscale trip parameter is understood to be the same as in Table 4.6.2g.
Please confirm and make the necessary change if appropriate.
Attachment B
(1)
Evaluation-paragraph 4:
How were the drift data for transmitters, square rooter and summer extrapolated to a minimum of 15 months and combined with the 3 month drift values for the flow trip units to establish the new setpoint?
Please identify the appendices that include these operations.
(2)
Conclusion, paragraph 2 states that the APRH and recirculation flow instrumentation system will continue to be calibrated every 3 months except the flow transmitters, square rooters and
- summers, while the last paragraph of the no significant hazard analysis states that the ~tri
~un'ts in APRM and recirculation flow instrumentation system will continue to be calibrated every 3 months.
Does the "instrumentation system" in paragraph 2 mean trip unit?
In addition, the second paragraph of the conclusion states that the entire APRM and recirculation flow instrumentation system will still be subject to the instrument channel tests every 3 months.
If this test is a channel functional test then it may not 'include components such as the Enclosure
transmitter and comparator and will not complement the channel calibration.
Please clarify these statements.
ttachme t C
c t o be "New" drifts are the observed values listed in the appendices.
A larger instrument setpoint drift during a specific surveillance test interval (STI) behooves a shorter STI to ensure the setpoint remains within the allowable value.
The STI for the first three components in the table should apparently be reduced instead of being increased (transmitter STI is increased ten fold) from the existing quarterly schedule.
Please discuss.
1.
0
B. Sylvia June 15, 1995 Please provide your response by July 15,
- 1995, so that we can continue our review consistent with your schedular needs.
. Sincerely, Original signed by:
Docket No. 50-220 Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request For Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page
, DISTRIBUTION Docket File
~
PUBLIC PDI-1 Reading SVarga JZwolinski LHarsh SLittle GEdison OGC ACRS (4)
CCowgill RFrahm DOCUMENT NAME:
G:)tNMPI)I,N191221. RAI To receive e copy of this document, Indicate In the born "C" Copy without enclosures "E" ~ Copy with enclosures "N
~ No copy OFFICE NAME LA:PDI-1 SLittle PM:PDI-1 GEdison:sm D: PDI-1 LHarsh DATE 06/)5/95 06/
95
~
06/i /95
'FFICIAL RECORD COPY
A
~
~
e h
'I