ML20045B842
| ML20045B842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1993 |
| From: | James Shea Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| TAC-M83704, TAC-M83705, NUDOCS 9306210162 | |
| Download: ML20045B842 (4) | |
Text
__
June 17, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278 Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.
Director-Licensing, MC 52A-5 Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk P.O. Box No. 195 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
Dear Mr. Hunger:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: APPLICATION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A 24-MONTH FUEL CYCLE, PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 (TAC NOS. M83704 AND M83705)
By letter dated May 28, 1993, Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco) provided information in response to the staff's April 30, 1993 request for additional information (RAI). The April 30, 1993 RAI asked questions concerning the extension of certain instrument and non-instrument surveillance intervals to correspond to a 24-month fuel cycle.
The staff has reviewed your May 28, 1993 response and requires some additional clarifications.
The additional questions are provided in the enclosure to this letter.
This request affects less than 10 respondents and, therefore, is not subject to Office of Management and Budget Review under P.L.96-511.
Should you have any questions regarding this RAI, please contact me at (301) 504-1428.
Sincerely,
/S/
Joseph W. Shea, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File JCalvo CDoutt EWenzinger, RGN-I NRC & Local PDRs CMiller OGC PDI-2 Reading M0'Brien(2)
ACRS(10)
SVarga eo JShea CAnderson, RGN-I (hf PDIkPM PDI-2/D,
o m CE NAME F
BRId4/
JS M fc CMitr&
DATE 0/ k93 k /0/93'
(-,/d/93
/ /
//
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: A:\\PB83704.RAI 9306210162 930617 4y DR ADOCK 0500 7
g4
. cyjf j
f* M%
Q
's 7 ! i Cf 7;
UNITED STATES i(
- -l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%,, g,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 Docket Nos. 50-277 June 17, 1o93 and 50-278 Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.
Director-Licensin9, MC 52A-5 Philadelphia Elactric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk P.O. Box No. 195 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
Dear Mr. Hunger:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: APPLICATION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A 24-MONTH FUEL CYCLE, PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC. POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 (TAC.NOS._M83704 AND as
'M83705)
By letter dated May 28, 1993, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) provided information in response to the staff's April 30, 1993 request for additional information (RAI). The April 30, 1993 RAI asked questions concerning the extension of certain instrument and non-instrument surveillance intervals to correspond to a 24-month fuel cycle.
The staff has reviewed your May 28, 1993 response and requires some additional clarifications. The additional questions are provided in the enclosure to this letter.
This request affects less than 10 respondents and, therefore, is not subject to Office of Management and Budget Review under P.L.96-511.
Should you have any questions regarding this RAI, please contact me at (301) 504-1428.
Sincerely, D
l.
Jose W. Shea, Project Manager F roject Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
1*
ENCLOSURE RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNITS 2 AND 3. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RELATING TO 24-MONTH OPERATING CYCLE SURVEILLANCE RE0VIREMENTS DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 1.
The Rosemount report D8900126 documenting a 30-month drift term for type 1152, 1153, and 1154 transmitters indicates that only 4 transmitters were included in the long-term testing program. The test results
~
indicate that all 4 transmitters remained bounded by the published stability specification for 30 months.
Please discuss the validity of these test results as being representative of the 1152, 1153, and 1154 transmitter population.
It is not clear that 4 transmitters provide a, large~enough sample size to determine a stability / drift specification for these transmitters.
Confirm that as found/as left plant-specific surveillance data validates the vendor drift value.
2.
The drift terms developed in the referenced submittal are based on the methodology referenced in NEDC-31366. Discuss using existing setpoint acceptance criteria (i.e. procedure drift allowance) as the basis of acceptability for the General Electric (GE) developed drift terms.
For example, the Peach Bottom procedure drift allowance is defined as the
+
difference between the " leave alone zone" and the TS value for protective action setpoint. Does this allowance include the same error terms as the GE developed drift term? Provide justification as to the suitability of comparing the GE methodology derived drift term to the Peach Bottom " procedure drift allowance" when evaluating a 30-month surveillance interval.
3.
For main steam resistance temperature detectors (RTD), describe the calibration / functional testing performed and the criteria used to determine the operability and accuracy of these RTDs. If calibration testing is not done discuss the means used to determine the continued accuracy of main steam RTDs.
i i
4.
The response to question 11 of the April 30, 1993, RAI references RTDs.
The licensing submittal indicates that these are thermocouples.
Please clarify as to what type of equipment is installed.
Additionally, describe the methods used to determine the accuracy of the suppression pool thermocouples during surveillance testing or, if testing is not done, discuss how the accuracy of the installed thermocouples is determined.
5.
The drift documentation provided for the proposed NUMAC equipment specifically excludes the contribution from the sensors. Discuss the applicability of this document to 30-month sensor calibrations.
For i
drift values referenced to less than 30 months, describe the methodology i
used to expand the drift term to a 30-month value.
i i
e Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, j
Philadelphia Electric Company Units 2 and 3 J
1 CC:
J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire Mr. William P. Dornsife, Director Sr. V.P. & General Counsel Bureau of Radiation Protection Philadelphia Electric Company Pennsylvania Department of 2301 Market Street, S26-1 Environmental Resources Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany ATTN: Mr. D. B. Miller, Vice President Board of Supervisors Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Peach Bottom Township Route 1, Box 208 R. D. #1 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Philadelphia Electric Company Public Service Commission of Maryland
.% ATTN:
Regulatory Engineer, Al-2S Engineering Division 1
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ATTN:
Chief Engineer Route 1, Box 208 231 E. Baltimore Street Delta, Pennsylvania? 17314 Baltimore, MD 21202-3486 Resident Inspector-Mr. Richard McLean U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Power Plant and Environmental Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Review Division P.O. Box 399 Department of Natural Resources Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 B-3, Tawes States Office Building g
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Regional Administrator, Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Roland Fletcher Department of Environment 201 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Carl D. Schaefer External Operations - Nuclear Delmarva Power & Light Company P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, DE 19899
.