ML20205R043

Forwards Correction to 960212 GL 95-07 180 Day Response. Level 3 Evaluation for Pressure Locking Utilized Analytical Models.Encl Page Has Been Amended to Correct Error

ML20205R043
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/13/1999
From:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
GL-95-07, GL-95-7, NEL-99-0153, NEL-99-153, NUDOCS 9904220161
Download: ML20205R043 (4)

Text

Dan Morry Southirn Nuclear

, Vice Presdent Operating C:mp ny.Inc. l Tarley Project Post Othce Bex 1295 ]

Bamingham, Alabama 35201 1 Tel 205 992.5131 SOUTHERN i COMPANY April 13, 1999 f""Xy to Scrve rour World" Docket Nos.: 50-348 NEL-99-0153 J

50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A'ITN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Resoonse to Generic Letter 95 07 Correction Ladies and Gentlemen:

l On February 12,1996. Southem Nuclear Operatmg Company (SNC) submitted the FNP 180 day i response to Generic Letter (GL) 95-07. In preparaten for a conference call with the staff held on March 31,1999, an error was discovered in that response. As discussed in the above conference call, SNC is submitting this correcton to the February 12,1996 GL 95-07180 day response The information in question is contained in the last paragraph on page 3 of the FNP response (attachment to cover letter). The last sentence in this paragraph is not consistent with the intent of the i screening process and is not reflective of the actual evaluation method The first sentence reflects the /[ I correct process. In general, valves were screened for potential susceptibility at up to 3 levels. Level 1 utilized design-related information. If a valve could not be screened-out during the Level 1 evaluation (e.g., the valve was coded PL-7), a more detailed evaluation was completed. This evaluation used actual valve / system operating requirements and expected values of system temperature, pressure, ambient temperature, etc. If a valve was still considered susceptible following tle detailed evaluation, a Level 3 evaluation was completed. The Level 3 evaluation for pressure lockmg utilized the analytical models. i The enclosed page has been amended to correct this error. Please substitute the -wi~i page 3 into the February 12,1996 GL 95-07 Response This letter contains no commitments to the NRC. Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, f NY '

Dave Morey

. . e . _,

,1bUte WAS/maf: gl950'i. doc

Enclosure:

Correction to February 12,1996 GL 95-07 Response

~

9904220161 990413 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P PDR

. Page 2 i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

l 1

cc: Southern Nuclear Oncratina ComtgJ l Mr. L. M. Stinson, Geteral Manager Farley U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commissiort Wmchinatna D. C.

Mr. J. I. Zimmerman, Licensing Project h knager - Farley U. S. Nuclear Renulatory Commissioit R>pon 11 Mr. L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator Mr. T. P. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspa tcr - Farley I

t

l l

l l

l l

l l

Enclosure Correction to Febmary 12,1996 GL 95-07 Response Attachment - Page 3 l

l 1

. The pttached lis'.ing identifies the 198 power-operated gate valves identified for screening and/or evaluation as part of the actions associated with Generic Letter 95-07.

The valves are identified by the Farley Nuclear Plant Total Numbering System (TPNS) in additions to a corresponding noun description. The other columns associated with the listing: 1 1- Denotes whether or not a particular valves has an " Active" opening safety funcbon, 2- Identifies the wedge design [ solid (SWG) or flexible (FWG)] for each valve, 3- Identifies the screening criteria [ pressure locking (PL) and/or thermal binding (TB)]

applied to each individual valve, 4- Identifies the valve grouping associated with each valve (this number can be cross referenced to the formal evaluations), and 5- Identifies a code (reference screening evaluation flow chart) for the associated PL or TB I

screening criteria by which the particular valves was eliminated from susceptibility consideration.

All valves identified with a code of PL-7 or TB-6 required at least a Level 2 screening evaluation. For those valves determined to be potentially susceptible to pressure locking I following the Level 2 detai;ad evaluation, an analybcal evaluation was performed using the Entergy and/or Comed models.

]

I

-3 04/13/99 l

_