ML20058E318
| ML20058E318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1993 |
| From: | Martin R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M88058, TAC-M88059, NUDOCS 9312060257 | |
| Download: ML20058E318 (8) | |
Text
. ';
,p ** "*%,?t f.
UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
_{
'j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 0001
%,'....,/
November 19, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, and 50-413, 50-414 1
Mr. M. S. Tuckman Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Duke Power Company P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006
Dear Mr. Tuckman:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS REGARDING REDUCED MINIMUM MEASURED REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM FLOW (TAC N05. M88058 AND M88059)
The NRC staff has identified a need for additional information as a result of its preliminary review of Duke Power Company's amendment application dated October 2S, 1993.
The application proposed changes to the Catawba Unit I and to the McGuire Nuclear Station Unit I and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) to reduce the required minimum measured reactor coolant system flow from 385,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 382,000 gpm.
The Technical Justification provided with the application lack's information on numerous aspects, but particularly on the justification to modify the form of TS 2.1.1.
In view of the need for substantial additional review of this matter, as indicated by the enclosed request for information, we suggest that it may be appropriate to withdraw this portion of the application at this time and to resubmit it with a more comprehensive basis.
This is in view of the schedule for startup for Catawba Unit 1.
Your immediate response to this request will facilitate reaching the staff's conclusions on these issues on a schedule consistent with your schedule for the startup of Catawba Unit 1 in Cycle 8.
N Pt B R L E C B H E Pi C O P 9312060257 931119 PDR ADOCK 0500036?
p PDR b li i
4 Mr. M. S. Tuckman November 19, 1993 This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
/s/
Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 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 NRC/ Local PDRs PDII-3 Reading R.Hermann V.Nerses E.Merschoff,RII OGC ACRS (10)
S.Varga R. Martin L. Berry H.Balukjian 8E23 P
vf u
'P3I pt3/EA Ibil.-J/PM SRXB
,PD}W/[y POI [3/_PM mm
/f[th7RRY
_. 'df)kRNIN RJONES RdbkM NRSS
- E
[ // /)/93 h//')/93 11/2 /93
/( /[f/93 II/4/93 WE
/
dFilCIAL RtCORD COPY, FILE NAME: G:\\ CATAWBA \\0CT-25.RAI 990.A5%.')
1 i
i j
Mr. M. S. Tuckman November 19, 1993 j
This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P,L.96-511.
Sincerely,
[@e E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II
]
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
Enclosure:
Request for Additional i
Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page l
n r
l
McGuire Nuclear Station 2
Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esquire Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Director Duke Power Company Department of Environmental, 422 South Church Street Health and Natural Resources Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-Division of Radiation Protection 0001 P. O. Box 27687 County Manager of Mecklenberg County I
720 East Fourth Street Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Project Branch #3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. R. O. Sharpe 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Compliance Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Site Ms. Karen E. Long 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Assistant Attorney General Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 North Carolina Department of Justice J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire P. 3. Box 629 Winston and Strawn Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 1400 L Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20005 Mr. G. A. Copp t
Licensing - EC050 Senior Resident Inspector Duke Power Company c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 1006 Commission Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-12700 Hagers Ferry Road 1006 Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region II Mr. T. Richard Puryear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Technical Services Manager 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Carolinas District 2709 Water Ridge Parkway, Suite 430 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 Dr. John M. Barry Mecklenberg County Department of Environmental Protection 700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 I
i
s L'
Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station i
cc.
Mr. R. C. Futrell North Carolina Electric Membership Regulatory Compliance Manager Corporation Duke Power Company P. O. Box 27306 i
4800 Concord Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 York, South Carolina 29745 Senior Resident Inspector l
North Carolina Municipal Power Route 2, Box 179 N Agency Number 1 York, South Carolina 29745 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard P. O. Box 29513 Mr. David L. Rehn Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Vice President, Catawba Site Duke Power Company County Manager of York County 4800 Concord Road York County Courthouse York, South Carolian 29745 York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. T. C. McHeekin Richard P. Wilson, Esquire Vice President, McGuire Site Assistant Attorney General Duke Power Company South Carolina Attorney General's I?700 Hagers Ferry Road Office Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Saluda River Electric e'
O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360
]
Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DUKE POWER COMPANY OCTOBER 25, 1993, AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1.
The application proposes to modify Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1 by replacing the definition of the Safety Limit with one from the B&W Standard Technical Specifications (STS) in NUREG-1430 and to modify TS Figure 2.1.1 by retitling it, to further define the acceptability of areas of operation on the figure, and by recalculating the lines on the figure to reflect the reduced assumption on core flow rate. Only a minimum of justification has been provided for the proposed change to the form of this TS. Significant additional information would be necessary to address apparent inconsistencies and potential misinterpretations. These would include the following as applicable to Catawba and McGuire:
a.
Appropriateness of the B&W STS definition for TS 2.1.1 without the B&W STS type figure for the Catawba and McGuire protection methodology, b.
Appropriateness of the 5080 degrees F value as a TS limit on fuel centerline temperature, c.
Appropriateness of the burnup correction factor, d.
Potential confusion introduced by the addition of a new box in the lower part of Figure 2.1-1 labeled "DNB Parameters Technical Specification" which is a function of only a corfstant, T, and power while the function and applicability of the remaining three-dependant variable limits in the figure are unchanged.
Please explain further how this proposed new box in the lower part of Figure 2.1-1 is to be interpreted for use.
e.
With respect to the changes proposed to BASES page B 2-1 which state that the revisions to Figure 2.1-1 are more restrictive than the actual safety limit curves, please provide background information on how much more restrictive they are and on why this is so.
f.
In Attachment II of the application, it states that DNBR and centerline fuel temperature limits have been added to TS 2.1.1 as Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO), replacing a reference to Figure 2.1-1, Reactor Core Safety Limit since this is considered to more accurately reflect the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36.
Explain what particular requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 are referred to.
Also, please provide an explicit discussion of any new information that would indicate that the subject parameters (DNB, fuel melt limits, coolant enthalpy and RPS trip setpoints) would not be controlled consistent with the design basis for the plants based upon the current form for TS 2.1.1.
i i
~
~2-2.
Discuss the hardware changes mentioned as being necessary to accommodate revised RPS trip setpoints.
3.
Discuss the error found in the OPA-T values including its root cause and its effect on margins to trip setpoints.
4.
Clarify the RCS flow value used for the LOCA analyses.
5.
Provide a corrected version of the current FSAR Table 15-4 for the forthcoming Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 8 6.
For the various changes in Table 2.2-1 (examples: K,K,K,K,K and i
2 3
6 q, - q,) provide information on the reasons for the changes and the approved method used to arrive at the new values.
Also provide an explanation of the method and reason for the change made in Notes 2 and 4 for the channel maximum trip setpoint.
1 7.
Figure 3.2-1, Reactor Coolant System Total Flow Rate Versus Rated Thermal Power, has been modified, with the RCS flow rate for 100% power being changed from 385,000 gpm to 382,000 gpm. There are further changes in RCS flow rate at other fractions of Thermal Power.
In 1 you state that plugged steam generator tubes and hot leg streaming affect accurate measurement of flow and as a result it will be difficult to ensure meeting the minimum flow requirement (Table 2.2-1 Item 12, as annotated) required by the TS to maintain 100% power-operation. Therefore you propose reduction in minimum measured flow for McGuire Units 1 and 2, and for Catawba Unit 1.
Please provide the following information:
1)
What are the analyses that have been performed to justify the reduction in minimum RCS flow at 100% thermal power? Are these analyses made using approved methods and if so what are these methods? Note that this application does not identify for any of the proposed TS changes the methodology used to evaluate the change.
i 2)
For the changes made in RCS flow at reduced thermal power, how are the RCS flow values determined for reduced thermal power? If sensitivity values are used for the effect of DNB please provide the method used with references.
3)
Please explain what fraction of the change is for the effect of plugged steam generator tubes and what fraction is for hot leg streaming.
8.
Please provide background information on the changes on TS page B 2-2 on the top of the page and also on the insert.
For the insert you mention that when the combination of reactor power and axial power i
imbalance is not within tolerance, the OPAT trip function will provide l
L the necessary fuel pin centerline temperature protection.
Explain the l
mechanism for measuring this and its equivalence to fuel centerline 3
-3 temperature.
Is the' imbalance measurement by computer? Has this method been appr3<ed bef6re in a similar application?
If so, provide the reference.
9.
Near the middle of page 2 of Attachment II, for the section on Thermal Hydraulic Design, FSAR Section 4.4, it states that "The reduced flow rate resulted in a slight reduction of the margin in the core DNB limits." Please indicate what the slight reduction in margin amounted to and what the amount of margin was before.
10.
Starting near the middle of page 3 of Attachment II, Accident Analyses, FSAR Chapter 15, a number of analyses that were reanalyzed are discussed. Please provide information and a listing of the codes used for these analyses and indicate if they are approved methods.
f I
i l
l 1
i i
l 1
.