ML18102A677
| ML18102A677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1996 |
| From: | Olshan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Eliason L Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| TAC-M95383, TAC-M95384, NUDOCS 9612230173 | |
| Download: ML18102A677 (5) | |
Text
(
I I*
Mr. Leon R. Eliason Chief Nuclear Officer & President~
Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electri~ and Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 December 18~96
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING MARGIN RECOVERY AMENDMENT REQUEST, SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M95383 AND M95384)
Dear Mr. Eliason:
The staff is reviewing your May 10, 19~6, amendment request for the margin recovery program for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
Enclosed *is an RAI that we need to complete our review.
Please provide a response within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
/S/
Leonard N. Olshan, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
. Docket Nos. 50-272/311
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl:
- See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File PUBLIC PDI-2 Reading SVarga/JZwolinski JStolz LOlshan MO' Brien OGC ACRS WPasci ak; -RGN-I -
DI-2/PM DATE
!1 j(0/96 AAttard CDoutt OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
SA95383.RAI 2 3 0 0_5_L ______________ _
9612230173 961218 PDR ADOCK 05000272 p
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. Leon R. Eliason Chief Nuclear Officer & President-Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas
- Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 December 18, 1996
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING MARGIN RECOVERY AMENDMENT REQUEST, SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M9.5383 AND M95384)
Dear Mr. Eliason:
The staff is reviewing your May 10, 1996, amendment request for the margin recovery program for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
Enclosed is an RAI that we need to complete our review.
Please provide a response within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Docket Nos. 50-272/311
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl:
See next page Sincerely, 1/1.~4 Leonard N. Olshan, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Proj~cts - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Mr. Leon R. Eliason tit
.. Public Service Electric &. Gas Company cc:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Law Department - Tower SE 80 Park Place Newark, NJ 07101 Mr. D. F. Garchow General Manager - Salem Operations Salem Generating Station P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Louis Storz Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Operations Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Charles S. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector Salem Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Dr. Jill Lipoti, Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Maryland Office of People's Counsel S St. Paul Street, 21st Floor Suite 2102 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Ms. R. A. Kankus Joint Owner Affairs PECO Energy Company 965 Chesterbrook Blvd., 63C-5 Wayne, PA 19087 Mr.* Elbert Simpson Salem Nuclea~enerating Station, Units 1 and 2 Richard Hartung Electric Service Evaluation Board of Regulatory Comnissioners 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Con111ission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. David R. Powell, Manager Licensing and Regulation Nuclear Business Unit P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Squar~
- Harrisburg, PA 17120 P. M. Goetz MGR. Joint Generation Atlantic Energy 6801 Black Horse Pike Egg Harbor Twp., NJ 08234-4130 Carl D. Schaefer External Operations - Nuclear Delmarva PQwer & Light Company P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, DE 19899 Public Service Con111ission of Maryland Engineering Division Chief Engineer 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS. 1 AND 2 PROPOSED CHANGE OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (MARGIN RECOVERY PROGRAM) 1} Section 4.0, "Accident Analysi~" - Please provide discussion on any computer code used in the transient and accident analyses which are not approved by NRC staff.
2} Section 4.1.1, "Uncontrolled RCCA Bank Withdrawal From a Subcritical Condition" -
Please provide transient DNBR curve to demonstrate that the criterion of the MDNBR is met during this transient.
3} Section 4.1.3, "Rod Cluster Control Assembly Misalignment" -
Please provide transient DNBR curve to demonstrate that the criterion of the MDNBR is met during this transient.
- 4) Section 4.1.4, "Uncontrolled Boron Dilution" - Please provide the results of an analysis to demonstrate sufficient times are available between the time of the alarm and the time of lost shutdown margin for all modes of plant operation per the SRP 15.4.6.
- 5) Section 4.1.5.3, "Single Reactor Coolant Pump Locked Rotor and Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break" - It is indicated that less than 5% of the total fuel rods experience DNB during a lock rotor event.
Please confirm that in your evaluation, all fuel rods with a transient DNBR less than 1.34 are assumed experiencing DNB and fuel failure. Using the amount of fuel failure determined above, provide the results of an analysis to demonstrate that the radiological consequences are within 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
6} Section 4.1.8, "Loss of Normal Feedwater" and Section 4.1~9, "Loss of Offsite Power" -
The PORVs were assumed operable during these transients.
However, the technical specification allows power operation with PORVs isolated. Please provide the results of analyses considering PORVs inoperable.
- 7) Section 4.1.10, "Excessive Heat Removal Due to Feedwater System Malfunctions" - In the assessment of this section, it is indicated that this transient is less limiting than the excessive load increase evaluated in Section 4.1.11.
However, the results of an excessive load increase is not presented in Section 4.1.11. Please provide the needed analysis results.
- 8) Section 4.1.13, "Main Steam System Failures" - Please provide transient DNBR curves for the accidental depressurization of main steam system and main steam line break events to demonstrate that.the acceptance criteria of these E!Vents are met.
- 9) Section 4.1.14, "Spurious Operation of the SIS at Power" - Please address the effect of this event regarding potential solid pressurizer.
(concern raised in Westinghouse NSAL-93-013)
ENCLOSURE
- 10) Section 4.1.15, "Single Rod Cluster Control Assemble Withdrawal at Full Power" - It is indicated that the results of this transient may cause fuel failure.
However, this is a condition II event (SRP 15.4.2) and no DNB is allowed for this transient. Please discuss the acceptability of this analysis.
- 11) Section 4.1.16, "Major Rupture of a Main Feedwater Line" -
Please p~ovide the results of an analysis assuming PORVs inoperable. This is because the technical specification allows power operation with PORVs isolated.
- 12) Section 4.1.17, "RCCA Ejection"-- The acceptance criteria of this event are specified in SRP 15.4.8. Specifically, the transient peak system pressure is below 110% of design pressure and the radiological consequences are well within the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
Please discuss the results of the analysis with respect to these acceptance criteria.
- 13) Settion 4.3, "Steam Generator Tube Rupture" - Please describe the limiting single failure assumed in this analysis.
- 14) Page 7, 8 lines from the top. A reference is made to one T-hot RTD.
Should the correct number be three or two depending on methodology for a failed T-hot RTD?
One RTD would appear to be using the bypass manifolds not RTD bypass.
If only one RTD is used then the CSA for the electronics may be ambitious. Table 2 states RTD used as three.
- 15) Page 8, Table 2.
RMTE is assumed to be 0.
Do plant procedures and available test equipment support this assumption?
- 16) Page 8, Table 2.
Is hot leg streaming included in the uncertainty for T-average?
Is it included in hot leg enthalpy, Table 5, page 18?
- 17) Page 15, second paragraph.
Under what conditions ~ a systematic temperature error allowance included as a cross calibration systematic error.