ML17254A455
| ML17254A455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1985 |
| From: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kober R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| LSO5-85-07-041, LSO5-85-7-41, NUDOCS 8507300382 | |
| Download: ML17254A455 (5) | |
Text
July 29, 1985 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-85-07-041 Mr. Roger W. Kober, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Mr. Kober:
DISTRIBUTION oc et NRC PDR Local PDR ORB ¹5 Rdg HThompson OELD EJordan RLicciardo BGrimes JPartlow CMiller CJamerson JZwolinski ACRS (10)
Houston
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
LOW PRESSURIZER WATER LEVEL AND PERMISSIVE P-10 Re:
R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Pl'ant By letter dated January 19,
- 1984, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RGSE) submitted a request for amendment to technical specifications of the R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant proposing to reduce the requirement for low pressurizer water level from 12$ to 10.6% and to change the P-10 permissive from 10Ã to 8% power.
On August 6, 1984 the staff had a telephone conversation with RGSE to request additional clarification and information.
As of this date RG&E has not formally responded in writing as indicated in that telephone conversation.
Enclosed is a request for additional information.
Please provide the information listed in the enclosure within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,~ S4~gP 4'wy John A. Zwolinski, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:
See next page 8507300382
~>
pgg
@DOCK 05000~>
DL:ORB¹5 CJamerson 9 /y /85 DL: RB¹5 CMi 1 1 er: jb 7 /g7/85 DL:ORB¹5 JZwolinski g /g$'85
1 I
I ff I
I f
If I
I fl ff N
v I
Mr. Roger W. Kober Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation R.
E. Ginna, Nuclear Power Plant CC:
Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire
- Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R.E.
Ginna Plant cCo U.S.
NRC 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esquire General Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 1850 Ridge Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Jay Dunkleberger Division of Policy Analysis 8 Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223
g f
~
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LOW PRESSURIZER WATER LEVEL AND PERMISSIVE P-10 Enclosur e 1.
Pressurizer Level You state that the change in low pressurizer level setpoint
'from 12K to 10.6X.. does'ot increase The consequences of an accident."
This would imply that safety analyses of anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents were originally analyzed assuming an initial pressurizer level of 12K, and that reanalysis with an initial level of 10.6X would not increase the consequences of the analyzed events.
Confirm that this is the case.
If not, specifically explain the basis for your statement if safety analyses were not performed at the lowest pressurizer level you are allowed to operate with while in hot shutdown or at power.
2.
P-10 Permissive You state that the proposed change in the P-10 setpoint from lOX to SX shows, for the limiting accidents, the safety margin is not significantly reduced.
Please provide additional information to support this'tatement.
Specifically, describe which protection logic/systems are influenced by P-10, why the "limiting accidents" are considered limiting with regard to this change, and why these events were concluded to remain limiting for all modes of operation.
Include a discussion of how different numbers of RCPs in operation (i.e.,
- none, one, or two) might affect this conclusion.
3.
The evaluation contained in Attachment B to the January 19,"1984, letter from John E. Maier to Harold R.
Denton concluded "Therefore, reducing P-10 to 8X has negligible.effect on the'inna Safety Analysis and the minimum DNBR for a RMAs is unchanged."
Confirm that this and other evaluations consider instrumentation errors and associated uncertainties in arriving at your conclusions.
If instrument errors and uncertainties have not been considered, please discuss why you consider this acceptable and confirm that prior conclusions remain valid.
'4.
Provide a discussion to resolve the following conflicts:
o Latest FSAR for R.
E.
Ginna plant lists P-10 at 8X RTP yet January 19, 1984 letter, from John E. Maier to Harold Denton indicates current plant value is 10K RTP.
o R.
E. Ginna plant technical specifications, page 2.3-4, item 2.3.2.1 currently lists P-10 at 8.5X RTP whereas Table 3.5-1, item 2 and 3 currently list P-10 at lOX RTP.