ML20043H888
| ML20043H888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1990 |
| From: | Hannon J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H889 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-72640, NUDOCS 9006270028 | |
| Download: ML20043H888 (2) | |
Text
. - pog
.jof _
UNITED STATES e,
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
- h --
5
- j-
~'
~
f.
June 20, 1990 Docket No. 50-440 4
Mr. Michael D. Lyster, Vice President Nuclear Group.
The1 Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081
Dear Mr.' Lyster:
SUBJECT:
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 - DENIAL OF AMENDMENT REQUEST (TACNO.72640)
By letter dated September 18,1987, you requested a license amendment for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. I concerning deletion,of the Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) Leakage Control System (LCS) and modification of MSIV. allowable-leak rates. By. letter dated March 11, 1988, the staff informed you of our denial of a portion of that amendment request related to' deletion of the MSIV LCS. By letter dated April 18, 1988 you withdrew that portion of.the September 18, 1987 application and requested that the portion of that request concerning MSIV leakage limits remain under consider-ation. The remaining proposed license amendment would modify leakage limits
.of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.2.c for the MSIVs from 25 SCFH (standard cubic feet per hour) for any one main steam line to 100 SCFH for all (four) main steam lines through the isolation valves when tested at Pa, 11.31 psig.
. Additional information related to your request was provided-by. letter dated-March 6, 1989.
By letter dated August 10, 1989, the staff requested additional information regarding the proposed change. You' responded to'the' staff's request for addi-tional.information by letter dated March 2, 1990. We have reviewed your response and have determined that you have not provided sufficient information to support acceptance of-your requested amendment. Specifically,
. you failed to provide either plant-specific or industry data to' support your assertion that approval of the affected change would not affect overall MSIV leakage rates.
Asstatedinourrequestforadditionalinformation(RAI),
MSIV leak-rate performance for your facility is among the lower one-third within the industry. Historic leak-rate testing results show that the MSIVs have leaked significantly beyond the Technical Specification (TS) limit
-which is the same limit assumed in the Perry Nuclear-Power Plant Up(dated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Chapter 15 loss-of-coolant' accident LOCA) analysis. Your proposed change as you state does'not-request a change in the total allowable TS leakage rate limit for MSIVs, and therefore, also.
- does not seek a change in the assumed-leakage for the USAR Chapter 15 LOCA
/h h
b PDC.0 kf 4
dj i
p k
^
Mr. Michael D. Lyster 2
June 20, 1990 t
+
analysis. However, you have not provided sufficient information to insure that approval of your proposed change would not increase the likelihood that actual measured leakage would exceed your TS limit and the USAR Chapter 15 analysis assumptions.
l L
The staff also notes that the first example cited in your response to the staff's question 3 relates to an attempted rebuilding repair of a solenoid operator which had experienced temperature degradation and is not related to MSIV leakage criteria.
Your second example in response to question 3 3
refers to the September 22, 1987, separation of the stem and operator of l
the "B" main steam line inbound MSIV (which caused it to be ino)erable), yet.
your investigation into the excessive leakage determined thet t1e outboard, MSIV on the "B" main steam line was the cause of the excess % e leakage and the root cause of this leakage appears to be a worn capping tool.
Neither
-of your examples appears particularly germane to your March 6,1989' assertion-that maintenance-induced-defects can contribute to future degradation of the l
MSIVs where degradation is defined as the sudden or gradual increase of leakage rates over the next operating cycle.
Based upon our review of your response to our RAI, we have determined that insufficient information exists on your docket to support the requested TS L
change; therefore, your amendment request is denied.
If at some future date.
you-determine that you have been able to obtain information sufficient to respond to the staff's request, you may feel free to resubmit your application with the accompanying supporting information.
L L
A copy of the Notice of Denial of Application for Amendment is enclosed for L
your information.
The notice has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal l
Register for publication.
Sincerely,
/s/
John N. Hannon, Director Project Directorate III Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects t
j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Notice of Denial l
l cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File EJordan PKreutzer OC/LFMB NRC & Local PDRs GHill (4)
TColburn PD33 Gray File PD33 Reading Wanda Jones' OGC Region III, DRP DCrutchfield JCalvo DHagan DOCUMENT NAME:
72640 DENIAL L
JZwolinski ACRS(10)
PA/PA l
tzer TColbu /bj rJHa
/ / p/90
/g/90 g/v/90 Q ( /90
/
I
.