ML20040B524

Forwards Draft Responses to NRC 811208 Request for Addl Info Re Reactor Sys.Odyn Analysis Will Be Submitted Upon Completion in Apr 1982.Responses Will Be Incorporated Into Amend to FSAR

ML20040B524
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/11/1982
From:	Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8201260147
Download: ML20040B524 (7)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

B e J f, E ,. -

s > . 4 i ... . s i1 . i "; h 1 e 11 u +J L. i;* A6i iL L'J MIN A Tite G Bi bri e PUBLIC ;rJ U A M e CL E VE L AND. OH:0 44101 e TI LI P H O N E (216) 6231350 m MAIL ADDRESS:

P. O. BOX 5000

?

, Tre n u ti n n >t!w tw:cn Da!wyn R. DavidsOn n b N i n... , u.o m. r n oo n ..

6 ~0 74,.y

%i

, N/

/  %\'

January ll, 1932 -

M r . B o t>e r t, L. Teducco L_ '

Acciutant Director of Licencing Divicion of Licencing 3 h[s

• A U. G. Iluelear Regulatory Corsiccion '

s s N d

Wachington, I;. C. ODM';

, '/

t .'s O

_J Perry Iluelear Power Plant Locket IIoc. 50-M 0; S0-%1 Hecponce to Requent, for Additional Information - l l

Reactor Cyctenc i I, ear 'tr. Tedecco:

Thic letter and its atLachment in submitted to provide draft responcec to the concerns identiriod in your letter dated December 8, 1931, in regard to reactor cycterc.

It in our intention t,o incorporate thece recponcec in a subsequent amendment to our Final Gafety Analycic Hei, ort.

Very Truly Yours.

8 / M*4 Dalwyn H. Davidcon Vice President Cyctem Engineering and Construction DHD: mlb ec: G. Charnoff, Ecq.

M. ". Houcton oOl I!RC Recident Inspector J Attachment l I(

8201260147 020111 DR ADOCK 05000440 PDR

. _ - . .. .. . ~ . _ . -_ . - ~ _ - . . .._- . - . . - _ _ . _ . _ . ._ .- . . . - _ - _

i i

i i

I' hh0.37 The applicant must cubmit analycee recalculating the MCFR (15.0) for the limiting events cpecified in the January 29, 1981 letter from D. G. Eisenhut to holders of CP and OL for LOTRn using OLYII.

l i Rec r>once j The ODYrl analycia will be nutnitted upon completion in April 1982.

i i t l

l I

l j

l 1

l l

t I

1 1

I i

i 1

I 1 . . _ ._ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _._ . . _ _ _ _ _ ._.

1l440.38 Operating of Perry with partial feedwater heating might (15 0) occur during maintenance or as a result of a decision to crerate with lower feedwater temperature near end of cycle. Juctify that thic mode of operation will not result in (1) greater maximum reactor veccel preccures than thoce obtained with the accumptions used in Section 5 2.2, (2) a more limiting MCPR than would be obtained with the accunptionc uced in Cection 15.0. The basic for the maxhnum reduction in feedwater heating concidered in the responce chould be provided (e.g. , specific turbine operational limitationu).

Response

Analyces will be provided prior to operation with partial feedwater heating if a decision is made to operate in thic mode.

l l l I

4h0.39 Reclaccification of the generator load rejection and "

(15.0) turbine trip transient without bypass from moderate to intrequent event: hac not been accepted by the staff.

1he frequency category in Table 15.0-1 and Sections 15.2.2.1.2.2 and 15.2.3.1.2.2 chould therefore be changed from infrequent to moderate. Thic change may result in the " generator load rejection with bypass of1*'

trancient being most limiting event for the category of events in Section 15.2 (Increace in Reactor Pressure).

Responce

'lhe responce to this question was submitted as an LRG-II position paper for incue 12-RSB in a letter to H. J. Faulkner I'com D. L. Holtzscher on Ilovember 20, 1981. This position was endorsed cn the Perry docket in a letter to J. R. Miller from D. R. Davidcun dated November 25, 1981.

l l

I

hho,140 Per Tavle 15.1-2, the most limitin6 trancient with respect (15.1,15.2) to fuel thermal margin is the loac of feedwater heater when in manual control. This result appears to be incon-cistent with the GESCM-238 LTcs and -251 I:30s findings whereby the most limiting event for the latter is generator load rejectior without bypass. E:: plain this difference. Cecondly, for which ecre condition was the loca of feedwater heating transient analyzed (e.g.,

beginning-of-cycle or at the end-of-equilibrium cycle or end of 1st cycle)? Justify selection of the most limit?ng core condition.

Responce The GEUCAR-238 and -251 findings show generator load rejection without bypass vere preliminary. The final analycis cubmitted ac GECSAR II chowed loca of feedwater heating when in manual control as the most limiting trancient with respect to fuel thermal margin. The Perry analys's ic concictent with this.

The locc of feedwnter heating trancient was ana.Lyzed for the end of equilibrium cycle. 'lhis is the moet limiting core condition becauce thic is the time of highect void coefficient and lowest scram reactivity.

l l

l

440.41 During meetingc with General Electric the staff hac discucced the uce of noncafety-grade equipment for anticipated analycec. It is our understanding that one of the moct limiting events in the feedwater controller failure (maximum flow demand). For thic trancient, the plant operating equipment that have a significant role in mitigating this event are the turbine bypacc cyctem and the reactor veccel hi6 h water level (Level 8) trip that clocen the turbine stop valves. To accure an acceptable level of performance, it is the staff's position that thia equipment be identified in the plant Technical Opecificationc with regard to availability, cetpoints, and curveillance testing. Cubmit your plan for implementing thic requirement along with any cyctem modificationc that may be required to fulfill the requirements.

Recponse For a limiting eveat of feedwater controller failure the infomation requected will be included in the Technical Specifications. The reactor veccel highwater level (Level 8) trip that cloces the turbine stop valves and the turbine bypacc cyctem are fully testable.

l

Iho.ha 4 For the recirculation pinp ceizure accident we note in Table 15.3-5 that credit ir taken for noncafety-grade equilanent to terminate thic event. Section 15.3.3 of the Standard Review Plan, Revicion 2 requires use of only cafety-grade equirment and that the cafety Ibnctions be accompliched accuming the worct cingle failure of an active component. Reevaluate thic accident with the above specific criteria, and provide the reculting 4CPR and percentage of Ibel rods in boiling transition.

Responce The responce to thic question was cubmitted as an LEG-II pocition paper on iccue ll-ROB from D. L. Holtzscher on November 20, 1981. This pocition was endorsed on the Pirry doeket in a letter t,o J. R. Miller from D. R.

Davidcon dated November 25, 1981.