ML20035A136
| ML20035A136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1993 |
| From: | Edison G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M85819, TAC-M85820, NUDOCS 9303240134 | |
| Download: ML20035A136 (4) | |
Text
!
March 19, 1993 Docket Hos. 50-334 and 50-412 Mr. J. D. Sieber, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Fawer Division Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077-0004 t
Dear Mr. Sieber:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO CHANGE REQUEST i
N05. 208 AND 74 (TAC NOS. M85819 AND 85820)
On February 19, 1993, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) submitted an application to amend the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units I and 2.
The proposed application would revise the TS to permit a reduced reactor coolant system flow rate. Our review of this application is underway, but for us to complete our review we require additional information.
The required additional information is described in the Enclosure. _ DLC is requested to provide a response by April 1, 1993 so that the staff can continue its review on the schedule you have requested. The questions in the enclosure were discussed with Mr. Vassello of your staff on March 18, 1993.
The requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and, therefore, are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under PL 96-511.
Sircerely, GoMdnE. Edison,SeniorProjectManager Project Directorate I-3
}
Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page D]STRIBUTION:
~ Docket File JCalvo OGC NRC & Local PDRs WButler ACRS (10)
SVarga GEdisonb JLinville,d PDI-3 Reading TClark RI OFFICE LA:PDI-3.
PM:PDI-3[
D:PDI-3/f.
I NAMEhiY GEdison:mw WButler f
\\
mE 3 /S /93 3 /fq/93 3 /,c /93
/ /
/ /
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY d I
~
(l FILENAME: BVM85819.RAI j
9303240134 930319' i
i yDR ADOCK 05000334 l
l I
PDR 3/
f gDR 8 I C,,
L
(('
h, UNITED STATES
'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 '
C W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 t-g March 19,1993
.s,
Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412 Mr. J. D. Sieber, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Wuclear Power Division Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077-0004
Dear Mr. Sieber:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO CHANGE REQUEST N05. 208 AND 74 (TAC N05. M85819 AND 85820)
On February 19, 1993, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) submitted an application to amend the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed application would revise the TS to permit a reduced reactor coolant system flow rate. Our review of this application is underway, but for us to complete our review we require additional information.
The required additional information is described in the Enclosure. DLC is requested to provide a response by April 1, 1993 so that the staff can continue its review on the schedule you have requested. The questions in the enclosure were discussed with Mr. Vassello of your staff on March 18, 1993.
The requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and, therefore, are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under PL 96-511.
Sincerely, Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
Mr. J. D. Sieber Beaver Valley Power Station Duquesne Light Company Units 1 & 2 cc:
Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Bureau of Radiation Protection Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Pennsylvania Department of 2300 N Street, NW.
Environmental Resources Washington, DC 20037 ATTN:
R. Barkanic Post Office Box 2063 Nelson Tonet, Manager Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Nuclear Safety Duquesne Light Company Mayor of the Borrough of Post Office Box 4 Shippingport Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Post Office Box 3 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Commissioner Roy M. Smith West Virginia Department of Labor Regional Administrator, Region I Building 3, Room 319 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Capitol Complex 475 Allendale Road Charleston, West Virginia 25305 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 John D. Borrows Resident Inspector Director, Utilities Department U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Utilities Commissicn Post Office Box 181 180 East Broad Street Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Post Office Box 3321 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321 Ohio EPA-DERR ATTN:
Zack A. Clayton Post Office Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 1
i Enclosure s
EQ EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RCS FLOW REDUCTION AMENDMENT PROPOSAL DATED FEBRUARY 19. 1993 Section 1.1 1.
For DNB considerations, please provide explanation and quantitative basis for statement that " Existing conservatism in DNB calculations bound the effect on DNB due to 1.5% flow reduction" and statements regarding UFSAR 14.1.3 and 14.2.7.
2.
Identify which events on DNB list were reanalyzed using reduced TDF.
Identify which events were evaluated using existing sensitivity data.
Address the list one-by-one and provide explanation and pertinent numbers, margins, etc.
3.
First paragraph: please clarify the reason why DNB limit lines (based on W-3-R-grid) do not need to be revised. What is given does not seem to relate to the change in DNBR resulting from reduced TDF.
4.
Ple:.se provide a discussion on why exit boiling lines were revised. What was the impact of reduced TDF on subcooling margin?
Section 1.2 1.
For each of the events listed, provide some numbers that show changes in margins resulting from reduced TDF and explain how the numbers were arrived at (reanalysis, existing sensitivity data, etc.) The present discussion simply states a conclusion; the basis for the conclusion is needed.
Section 3.d 1.
Please confirm / clarify that the change in Tavg in Table 3.2-1 is not a result of reduced TDF but, rather, due to revised uncertainty evaluation.
The statement in Para 2 of pg. 4 (Attachment B) regarding Tavg does not seem consistent.
2.
Last Para on pg.7 and top Para on pg. 8 needs clarification.
I 1
a