ML20140E328

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Addl Info Re 851202 Application for Amend to License NPF-38,changing Tech Specs Re Amount of Margin Credited During CPC Monitoring & Moderator Temp Coefficient Values.Info Requested by 860404
ML20140E328
Person / Time
Site: Waterford 
Issue date: 03/17/1986
From: Joshua Wilson
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Leddick R
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8603270441
Download: ML20140E328 (3)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

s MAR 171986 Docket No.: 50-382 Mr. if. S. Leddick Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Louisiana Fower and Light Company 317 Baronne St., Mail Unit 17 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160

Dear Mr. Leddick:

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The staff has reviewed your request, dated December 2,1985, for an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications for your Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.

We have determined that additional information is required to allow the staff to complete its review.

You are requested to provide the information identified in Enclosure 1 by COB on April 4, 1986 in order that we may complete our review in a timely manner.

If you have any questions about this request, please contact rne at (301) 492-8593.

Sincerely,

()

James H. Wilson, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No. 7 Division of PWR Licensing-B

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page Distribution:

Docket File'~50-382 D. Crutchfield NRC PDR C. Trrras Local PDR N. Iauben l

PBD 7 Reading L. F. opp l

F. Miraglia l

OELD l

E. Jordan B Grimes 9603270441 860317 ADOCK0500g2 J$ Partlow DR p

J. Wilson AbR 10) h PBD-7 D:PBD-7 l

JWilso

(_ s GWKnighton 3//7/8 3/Q/86

=

a O

Mr. R. S. Leddick Louisiana Power & Light Company Waterford 3 cc:

W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.

Regional Administrator, Region IV Monroe & Leman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1432 Whitney Building Office of Executive Director New Orleans, Louisiana 70103 for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Mr. E. Blake Arlington, Texas 76011 Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Carole H. Burstein, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20036 445 Walnut Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Mr. Gary L. Groesch P. O. Box 791169 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manacer New Orleans, Louisiana 70179-1169 Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineerina, Inc.

Mr. F. J. Drummond 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1310 Project Manacer - Nuclear Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Mr. K. W. Cook i

Nuclear. Support and Licensing Manager Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS i

P. O. Box 822

'Killona, Louisiana 70066 4-

]

Mr. Jack Fager Middle South Services, Inc.

i P. O. Box 61000 New Orleans,' Louisiana 70161 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 4

h r-, - - -

- -, - - -, ~.

ENCLOSURE PROPOSED CHANGE NPF-38-09 1.

Provide the amount of margin credited during CPC monitoring for each of the following:

a) reduced modeling uncertainty over a narrower LC0 ASI Band b) credit for transient offset terms c) credit for additive power measurement uncertainty d) credit for conservatism of neutron flux power relative to thermal power e) credit for dynamic pressure uncertainty in CPC f) credit for the Update penalty factor in CPC 2.

Explain how the COLSS out-of-service DNBR limit line is derived (Fig. 3.2-2 and Fig. 3.2-3).

3.

Why is there no difference between Fig. 3.2-2 (for COLSS out-of-service and CEACs operable) and Fig. 3.2-3 (for COLSS out-of-service and CEACs inoperable)?

4.

The Bases for LHR states that a penalty factor of 57% is applied in CPC when COLSS is out-of-service and both CEACs are inoperable. How is this penalty determined and how is it applied in the CPC? Is the penalty cycle dependent?

5.

Should Surveillance Requirement 4.2.1.2 refer to Figure 3.2-a rather than 3.2-1?

PROPOSED CHANGE NPF-38-12 1.

Please comment on whether present or future cycles may contain MTC values which are not necessarily most positive at BOL.

If so, the surveillance requirement?should be worded so as to perform a con-firmatory measurement near the cycle time of maximum positive MTC.

m l

i t