ML18054A308
| ML18054A308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Wambach T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berry K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TAC-66901, NUDOCS 8806020162 | |
| Download: ML18054A308 (5) | |
Text
--
Mr. Kenneth W. Berry Di rector of-Licens i.ng __ --*
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Berry:
May 26, 1988
SUBJECT:
PALISAPES PLANT - REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM MODIFICATION AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (TAC.NO. 6690l)
In the course of our review of your. *submittal s dated December 23, 1987 and *
.March 25, 1988 on the qbove subject, we find that we require additional infqrmation.
- The -specific :requests are contained in the enclosure to this letter.
As we continue our review,* we _may find that addjtional information is needed.*
This request is specific 'to Palisades thus affecting only one respondent.
Therefore, OMB clea_rance un~er PL 96-511. is _not.required.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enc:losure:
. See next page DISTRIBUTION.. :
cDOCKEJ FILE).
NRC & TcfcAi PDRs PD31 GRAY FILE.
DCRUTCHFIELD GHOLAHAN RING RAM DMULLER OGC *
- EJORDAN JPARTLOW ACRS (10)
Sincerely,
~~~jy Thomas Y.
Wamb~ch, Prbject Manager Project Directorate JII-1 Division of Reactor Projects ~ Ill, IV, V
-& Special Projects dV/JV JV'. \\ PM/PD31.
j\\'~\\\\ TWAMBACH 5/J..lf/88
(
- . i 8806020162 080526"
\\
PDR ADOCK oso~5~s p
PQL~l D~~~R 57i)../88
... ~
Mr. Kenneth W. Berry Director of Licensing Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Berry:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 26, 1988 -
-~
SUBJECT:
PALISADES PLANT - REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM MODIFICATION AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (TAC NO. 66901)
In the courie of our review of your submittals dated December 23, 1987 and March 25, 1988 on the above subject, we find that we require additional information.
The specific requests are contained in the enclosure to this letter.
As we continue our review, we may find that additional information is needed.
This request is specific to Palisades thus affecting only one respondent.
Therefore, OMB clearance under PL 96-511 is not required.
Sincerely,
~7/Jr~~-
Thomas V. Wambach, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill, IV, V
& Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
y Mr. Kenneth W. Berry
~onsumers Power Company cc:
M. I. Miller, Esquire Sidley & Austin 54th Floor One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Thomas A. McNish, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Jerry Sarno Township Supervisor Covert Township 36197 M-140 Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor Room 1 - Capitol Building
. Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Gerald B. Slade Plant General Manager Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Hwy.
Covert, Michigan 49043 Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Palisades Plant 27782 Blue Star Memorial Hwy.
Covert, Michi~an ~9041 Palisades Plant Nuclear Facilities:and Environmental Monitoring Sect ion Office Division of Radiological Health P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909
~I REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PALISADES MODIFIED RPS REPORTS *
- 1.
Comment - Since "axial offset" and "axial shape index" have**opposite arithmetic signs defining the axial power shape which is important in some transient analyses, these should not be combined in the general definition proposed.
- 2.
Discuss any differences between the proposed Palisades modifications for the variable high power trip (VHPT) axial shape index (ASI) alarm, and thermal margin/low pressure (TM/LP) trip and those described in CENPD-199.
- 3.
Discuss the acceptability of the nodal modeling in the modified version of PTSPWR2 for analyzing the asymmetric flow situations in CE split cold leg (2x4) plants such as Palisades.
- 4.
Discuss the benchmarking of the revised version of PTSPWR2 against RELAP5/MOD2 in more detail. Describe the transient analyses which were compared and the differences in results, if any.
- 5.
Since 2-pump operation is being deleted, why doesn 1t the wording iri Tech Spec bases such as 3.1.1 refer specifically to operation with 3 primary coolant pumps rather than operation with less than 4 primary coolant pumps?
- 6.
Where are R~ferences 27, 28, 29 in ANF-87-150, Vol. 2?
- 7.
Describe how the specific TM/LP trip uncertainties described in CENPD-199, Rev. 1, are incorporated into the TM/LP uncertainties shown in Table 15.0.7.2-1 of ANF-87-150, Vol. 2.
- 8.
Aside from the proposed reactor protection system modifications, describe any differences in methodology or assumptions between the reanalyzed Chapter 15 events presented in ANF-87-150 and the previous
- analyses of record.
- 9.
Your proposed disposition of the CEA withdrawal event from 10-4 percent of rated power with 3 pumps operational allows limited fuel failure.
Justify this with respect to General Design Criterion (GDC) 25 which requires the protection system to be designed to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded for any single malfunction of the reactivity control system such as accidental withdrawal of control rods.
GDC 25 makes no references to any probability assumption allowances.
Also, since operation at hot shutdown with 3 pumps is allowedi discuss the consequences_Qf a CEA bank withdrawal from hot shutdown or below.
- 10.
What audible alarms are available during startup to alert the operator in the event of an inadvertent boron dilution?
- 11.
How have the effects of 29% steam generator tube plugging been accounted for in the (1) increase in steam flow, (2) loss of load, (3) eves malfunction resulting in boron concentration decrease, (4) inadvertent opening of steam generator relief or safety valve, (5) inadvertent opening of pressurizer pressure relief valve, (6) steam generator tube failure, and (7) large break LOCA events?
-,-; 12.
The wording in Table 2.3.1 does not limit power to< -39% with 3-pump operation.
For example, it would allow operation at 48% power with a VHPT at 49%.
Where is the Tech Spec requirement to reduce-- power to < 39%
for 3-pump operation?
- ~
- 13.
Does Tech Spec 3.1.l.b allow operation for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or for~~ hours (12 +
- 24) with one pump out of service?
- 14.
Should Basis 2.3.4 refer to limiting power to< 39% for up to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> with 3-pump operation?
- 15.
Why does Fig. 3-6 allow a maximum power level of 45% of full power for 3-pump operation?
- 16.
Provide an informative hardware description including wiring diagrams, operating manual, programming instructions and any other material needed for modifying the program.
- 17.
Provide the Gamma-metric Verification Summary Report as described in the verification plan which addresses the items enumerated in ANS 7-4.3.2.
- 18.
Does this equipment meet the requirements of IEEE/ANSI 1012-1986 (Ref.
J-54, Section 10)?
- 19. - Provide J-54, Attachment F, or confirm that JL-130, Sheet 1, Rev. 4, is the -
appropriate revision.
- 20.
Descr1be the administrative controls on licensee reprogramming of nonvolatile memory (J-54, Attached A, page 1) including verification and validation concerns.
Describe administrative controls on operator setpoint revisions.
- 21.
What are the inputs to the trouble alarm contact shown on JL-130?
How are the operators alerted to trouble with TMM?
- 22.
Is the integrity test (software requirements 3.2.2.2) the same as the self-test (3.1.7.1)? Describe the portions of the TMM that these tests do not check on startup or repower.
--