ML20216J019
| ML20216J019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1999 |
| From: | Buckley B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hutton J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| TAC-MA4977, TAC-MA4978, NUDOCS 9910040143 | |
| Download: ML20216J019 (5) | |
Text
_
September 27, 1999
' Mr. Jim:s A. Hutton m
el l Director-Licensing, MC 62A-1 PGCO Energy Company.
E
- Nuclear Group Headquar1ers i
Correspondence Control Desk l
P.O. Box No.195 Wayne, PA 19087-0195 i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDINO ;'EACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT REQUEST TO SUPPORT INSTALLATION OF
. DIGITAL POWER RANGE NEUTRON MONITORING SYSTEM AND INCORPORATION OF LONG-TERM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC STABILITY SOLUTION HARDWARE (TAC NOS. MA4977 AND MA4978)
Dear Mr. Hutton:
I Based on our evaluation of your submittal dated March 1,' 1999, on the above subject material, we find that additional information as delineated in the enciesure is required to continue our -
review. On September 15; 1999, we discussed these issues with members of your staff, and a 30-day response from receipt of this letter was mutually acceptable.
Should you have any questions on this matter,il can be contacted at (301) 415-1483.
l 4
Sincerely, Orig'inal signed by:
l Bartholomew C. Buckley, Sr. Project Manager, Section 2 l
Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation L
h Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278
Enclosure:
' Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION.
Docket File.
M. Ferdas ACRS J. Clifford E.Marinos PUBLIC M. O'Brien
- 1. Ahmed M. Oprendek, Rl S. Black PDI-2 R/F B. Buckley OGC R. Wood DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDI-2\\PeachBottom\\RAl4977and4978.WPD '
b To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy
.with attachmant/ enclosure "N" = No copy *See previous concprrence OFFICE PM:PDI-2 F{f, lE EEIB_
- // l LA:M!g2 M l
SC:PtH f l
PDI-2 l
~
NAME 88uckley/rst' EMar M W Mo'BrTen' JC L 1 NJ.rd.
MFerdas* h) T DATE 09/ p /99 09 4 Kr99 09/4 } 99 09/7/ //99 0C/1T/99 '
Official Record Copy 9910040143 990927 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
PDR A
a pn nau d!y.
4 UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I C WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 27, 1999 Mr. James A. Hutton Director-Licensing, MC 62A-1 PECO Energy Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk P.O. Box No.195 Wayne, PA 19087-0195
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT REQUEST TO SUPPORT INSTALLATION OF DIGITAL POWER RANGE NEUTRON MONITORING SYSTEM AND INCORPORATION OF LONG-TERM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC STABILITY SOLUTION HARDWARE (TAC NOS. MA4977 AND MA4978)
Dear Mr. Hutton:
Based on our evaluation of your submittal dated March 1,1999, on the above subject material, we find that additional information as delineated in the enclosure is required to continue our review. On September 15,1999, we discussed these issues with members of your staff, and a 30-day response from receipt of this letter was mutually acceptable.
Should you have any questions on this matter, I can be contacted at (301) 415-1483.
i Sincerely, g
g D M.Q Bartholomew C. Buckley, Sr. Project Manager ( 3ection 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278
Enclosure:
Request for AdditionalInformation cc w/ encl: See next page u
Psach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 cc:
J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire Chief-Division of Nuclear Safety Sr. V.P. & General Counsel PA Dept. of PECO Energy Company Environmental Resources 2301 Market Street, S26-1 P.O. Box 8469 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 PECO Energy Company Board of Suprevisors ATTN: Mr. J. Doering, Vice President Peach Bottom Township Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station R. D. #1 1848 Lay Road Delta, PA 17314 Delta, PA 17314 Public Service Commission of PECO Energy Company Maryland ATTN: Regulatory Engineer, A4-SS Engineering Division Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Chief Engineer Chief Engineer 6 St. Paul Center 1848 Lay Road Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 Delta, PA 17314 Mr. Richerd McLean Resident inspector Power Plant and Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review Division Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 399 B-3, Tawes State Office Building Delta, PA 17314 Annapolis, MD 21401 Regional Administrator, Region i Dr. Judith Johnsrud U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Energy Committee 475 Allendale Road Sierra Club King of Prussia, PA 19406 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16803 Mr. Roland Fletcher Department of Environment Manager-Financial Control & Co-Owner 201 West Preston Street Affairs Baltimore, MD 21201 Public Service electric and Gas Company A. F. Kirby,111 P.O. Box 236 l
External Operations - Faclear Hacocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 l
Delmarva Power & Light Company P.O. Box 231 Manager-Peach Bottom Licensing Wilmington, DE 19899 PECO Energy Company Nuclear Group Headquarters PECO Energy Company Correspondence Control Desk Plant Manager P.O. Box No.195 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Wayne, PA 19087-0195 1848 Lay Road Delta, PA 17314
p 1.
PEQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl) REGARDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT REQUEST TO SUPPORT INSTALLATION OF DIGITAL POWER RANGE NEUTRON MONITORING SYSTEM AND INCORPORATION OF LONG-TEiRM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC STABILITY SOLUTION HARDWARE FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Chances To Functions:
(1)
It is stated that "APRM Inop" trip is changed to reflect NUMAC-PRNM and to delete minimum LPRM detector coun; from the trip, except alarm. Explain how and where it affected the proposed TS change (i.e., is this a change to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 or a change to update the TS Bases?)
TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Chances to Recuired Number of APRM Channels:
(1)
Increment inoperable APRM from 14 to 20 and new limit on maximum inoperable LPRMs per APRMs is not a proposed change on this table. Is this a change to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 or a change to update the TS Bases?
(2) It is stated on page 3 that the setpoints and allowable values have been changed where justified by the setpoint calculations and the improved equipment performance specifications. Provide reference to NRC-approved setpoint methodology and performance specifications used for this calculation. Also on page 5 (last paragraph) it is stated that the allowable value for simulated thermal-high trip is based on engineering judgment. Which changed items in the table are based on calculations and which are based on engineering judgment, and further explain the justification for using engineering judgment?
TS Table 3.3.2.1-1 Chanaes:
(1)
RBM Downscale trip is not deleted in the topical report. PECO's basis for removing this trip is stated to be NUMAC-CPRN's capability to eliminate the types of failures that are detected by this trip function. Since NUMAC-CPRN specifically does not support deletion of this trip, provide the technical basis to justify the proposed change.
(2) Topical Report has conditions (d) and(e) applicable to RBM-Inop trip function. PECO added conditions a, b, e and deleted condition e. This change is not discussed in the submittal. Also, the operability range of RBM under conditions a, b, and c are retained in the topical and changed by PECO to be "one sided" to reduce the risk of non-compliance.
This change will affect the RBM trip ope,rability requirements as follows:
l (1)
Low power range-upscale will have to be operable beyond 63.3% RTP (current operability range is 28.4% to 63.3% RTP).
(2)
Intermediate power range-upscale will have to be operable beyond 83.3% RTP (current operability range is 63.3% to 83.3% RTP).
Enclosure i
l
I
- (3)
High power range-upscale will have to be operable below and above 90% RTP
-(no upper and lower limit-current low limit is 83.3% RTP).
(4)
Inop will have to be cperable at or.above 28.4% of RTP as per a, beyond 83.3%
i of RTP as per b, and below and above 90% RTP (no limit) as per item 3 above.
Explain how conditions a, b, and c, which are different, shall be simultaneously applicable to Inop in item 4.
l l
l I
l.
l