ML20236M034

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Interpretation of TS Requirements for Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio at Wolf Creek Plant
ML20236M034
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation icon.png
Issue date: 11/12/1996
From: Charemagne Grimes
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Bateman W
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20236J990 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-98-155 NUDOCS 9807130276
Download: ML20236M034 (3)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

'g UNITE 3 STATES

[ S E

NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION E

, WASHINGTON. D.C. 30046 4001 h

%*o , November 12, 1996 MEMORANDUM T0: William H. Bateman, Director Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III & IV Associate Director for Projects, NRR FRON: Christopher I. Grimes, Chief - '

Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects, NRR '

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO In a note dated October 31, 1996, F. Ringwald requested an interpretation of technical specification (TS) requirements for Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR) at the Wolf Creek plant. With Wolf Creek at 50% of rated thermal power (RTP),

the QPTR read 1.035, which is above the LCO limit of 1.02 and required entry into Action a. The Shift Supervisor logged entry into Action a.4.

The QPTR technical specification (TS) limiting condition for operation (LCO) states:

3.2.4 The QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO shall not exceed 1.02.

Action a.4. states:

a.

With the QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO determined to exceed 1.02 but less than or equal to 1.09:

4. Identify and correct the cause of the out-of-limit condition prior to increasing THERMAL POWER; subsequent POWER OPERATION above 50% of RATED THERMAL POWER may proceed provided that the QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO is verified within its limit at least once per hour for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> or until verified acceptable at'95% or greater RATED THERMAL POWER.

Action d. later stipulates that the provisions of Specification 3.0.4, requiring that the LCO conditions of a TS be met prior to OPERATIONAL MODE entry, are not applicable.

Plant management informed the shift supervisor that a power increase above 50%

of rated thermal power was permitted given their interpretation of Technical Specifications. The shift supervisor agreed, and raised power above 50% with the QPTR still at approximately 1.035. As power increased above 90% of rated thermal power, QPTR decreased below 1.02.

CONTACT: Bob Tjader, NRR 415-1187 j

9807130276 980624  !

PDR FOIA UNNERST98-155 PDR l__.___._..._____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

_j

Bateman November 12, 1996 o

The Wolf Creek TS 3/4.2.4 Action a.4 in conjunction with the stated exception to Specification 3.0.4 results in some ambiguity. The intent is that if there is either an identified reason for the QPTR to exceed 1.02 that adversely affects peaking factors (such as rod misalignment), or the reason for the out-of-limit QPTR is unknown, then power should not be increased. If the cause of the of the out-of-limit QPTR condition is corrected or identified and determined not to be significant, and as long as peaking factors are within lit.iits, such as during a xenon transient, then power can be increased as stipulated in a.4. Power should never be increased with QPTR at 1.09 or greater.

In the situation described, in which Wolf Creek determined that the out-of-limit QPTR was due to a xenon transient and it would return to within limits as power increased, the licensees actions were appropriate.

The QPTR TS in the improved STS is much more precisely and clearly written, and does not contain the ambiguity contained in Wolf Creek TS 3/4.2.4. The Wolf Creek plant plans to adopt the improved STS in 1997, which will correct the interpretation difficulties associated with this specification.

The Reactor Systems Branch concurs in this assessment.

Docket No. 50-482 l cc: F. Ringwald, SRI, Wolf Creek, RIV J. Dyer, RIV R. Cooper, RI E. Merschoff, RII W. Axelson, RIII J. Stone J. Roe R. Jones J. Lieberman DISTRIBUTION: . 1 FILE CENTER TSB R/F CIGrimes NTRTjader TSB Background Books DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TRT\QPTR-WLF.CRK *See previous previous concurrence OWE TSB:ADPR:NRR C:TSB:ADPR:NRR C:SRXB:DSSA l j.

ME TRTjader* CIGrimes* RCJones*

out 11/7/96 11/7/96 11/12/96 i 0FFICIAL RECOR) COPY gy p

~'

?

i

, Dyer -

2- November 12, 1996 The Wolf Creek TS 3/4.2.4 Action a.4 in conjunction with the stated exception to Specification 3.0.4 results in some ambiguity. The intent is that if there is either an identified reason for the QPTR to exceed 1.02 that adversely affects peaking factors (such as rod misalignment), or the reason for the out-of-limit QPTR is unknown, then power should not be increased. If the cause of j the of the out-of-limit QPTR condition is corrected or identified and determined not to be significant, and as long as peaking factors are within limits, such as during a xenon transient, then power can be increased as stipulated in a.4. Power should never be increased with QPTR at 1.09 or greater.

In the situation described, in which Wolf Creek determined that the out-of-limit QPTR was due to a xenon transient and it would return to within limits as power increased, the licensees actions were appropriate.

I The QPTR TS in the improved STS is much more precisely and clearly written, i and does not contain the ambiguity contained in Wolf Creek TS 3/4.2.4. The Wolf Creek plant plans to adopt the improved STS in 1997, which will correct the interpretation difficulties associated with this specification.

The Reactor Systems Branch concurs in this assessment.

Docket No. 50-482 cc: F. Ringwald, SRI, Wolf Creek, RIV J. Dyer, RIV i R. Cooper, RI I E. Merschoff, RII W. Axelson, RIII J. Stone i J. Roe l R. Jones i J. Lieberman j E

-____ _____.-___m_______________________m__m___

',i., . I g pa car

+- p t UNITED STATES I g j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30606 4 001 l

i o

%y...../ November 21, 1996 Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President Generation Business Group Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nuclear Learning Center 450 Lake Road Oswego, NY 13126

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.0.2, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 (TAC NO. M96908)

Dear Mr. Sylvia:

By letter dated October 21, 1996, you requested a written interpretation of Technical Specification (TS) 3.0.2 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2. Specifically, you express concern that TS 3.0.2 could be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with your present practice regarding the return of safety systems and components to operable status.

You note that TSs for a number of safety-related components require that they be placed in a tripped condition if inoperable. In order to implement surveillance requirements after repair or replacement of an inoperable component, it is your practice to restore the component to its untripped condition (or condition required by the Action Statements) and then test it to confirm or establish operability. You are concerned for an interpretation that would prevent the repaired or replaced component from being restored from its tripped condition without first confirming or establishing that the component is operable.

It is not the intent of TS 3.0.2 to preclude the return to service of a component that has been replaced or repaired when it can reasonably be considered operable except for the completion of surveillance testing to confirm its operability. The NRC staff has addressed this existing ambiguity in TS 3.0.2 by adding TS 3.0.5 to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for BWR/4, Revision 1. TS 3.0.5 states, in relevant part: " Equipment removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with ACTIONS may be returned to service under administrative control solely to perform testing required to demonstrate its OPERABILITY or the OPERABILITY of other equipment...." In addition to providing this clarification, the Bases for TS 3.0.5 also notes that the administrative controls are to ensure that the time during which the component is under manual control of the operator before operability is demonstrated is to be limited to the minimum time necessary to perform the allowed surveillance (i.e., this is not to include time for other preventive or corrective maintenance). We trust this is also your present practice.

i.. .

8. Sylvia November 21, 1996 Consistent with our discussions with Industry leading to TS 3.0.5 and other improvements, the NRC encourages licensees to request amendments to convert to the improved Standard Technical Specifications. This action will help to ensure that licensees and the NRC have a common understanding of the TS requirements. In this respect, we recognize your intent to apply in March 1997 to convert Unit 2 accordingly.

This letter completes our efforts under TAC No. M96908 which is now closed.

Sincerely,

/S/

S. Singh Bajwa, Acting Director Project Directorate I-I Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-410 cci See next page DISTRIBUTION:

See next page DOCUMENT NAML: G:\NMP2\TSINTERP.LTR To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE PM PDI 1 lE LA PDI 1 hj) l OGC l D PDI 1 f/4 l TSS 6 [. - 1"1l l mAME Duood/rsi h tN stittte W ~ E, ~ m (M C U seeJwe /# M N CGrimes rv._

09 CE DATE 1@ /M 11/ / /38--- 11/ /% 11/ /M 11/ /%

Offictal Record Copy i

l -

B. Sylvia Consistent with our discussions with Industry leading to TS 3.0.5 and other improvements, the NRC encourages licensees to request amendments to convert to the improved Standard Technical Specifications. This action will help to ensure that licensees and the NRC have a common understanding of the TS requirements. In this respect, we recognize your intent to apply in March 1997 to convert Unit 2 accordingly.

This letter completes our efforts under TAC No. M96908 which is now closed.

Sincerely, S. Singh Bajwa, Acting Director Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-410 cc: See next page l

(

o' B. Ralph Sylvia Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Unit 2 cc:

Mr. Richard B. Abbott Charles Donaldson, Esquire l Vice President and General Manager - Assistant Attorney General Nuclear New York Department of Law Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 120 Broadway Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station New York, NY 10271 P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Richard M. Kessel Chair and Executive Director Mr. Martin J. McCormick, Jr. State Consumer Protection Board Vice President 99 Washington Avenue Nuclear Safety Assessment Albany, NY 12210 and Support Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Winston & Strawn P.O. Box 63 1400 L Street, NW.

Lycoming, NY 13093 Washington, DC 20005-3502 Ms. Denise J. Wolniak Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Manager Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Syracuse, NY 13202 P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. F. William Valentino, President New York State Energy, Research, Mr. Kim A. Dahlberg and Development Authority General Manager - Projects Corporate Plaza West Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 286 Washington Avenue Extension Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Albany, NY 12203-6399 P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Supervisor Town of Scriba Mr. John T. Conway Route 8, Box 382 Plant Manager, Unit 2 Oswego, NY 13126 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Mr. Richard Goldsmith P.O. Box 63 Syracuse University Lycoming, NY 13093 College of Law E. I. Whit ? Hall Campus Regional Administrator, Region I Syracuse,!N 12223 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road Mr. John l'. N,quist, MATS Inc.

King of Prussia, PA 19406 P.O. Box ('

Lycoming, h 13093 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O. Box 126 l Lycoming, NY 13093

B. Ralph Sylvia Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Unit 2 cc:

l Mr. Jim Rettberg l New York State Electric & Gas l Corporation Corporate Drive

! Kirkwood Industrial Park P.O. Box 5224 Binghamton, NY 13902-5224 O

(,. =

DISTRIBUTION: h t[

Docket File I

PUBLIC PDI-1 Rer. ding FMiraglia RZimmerman SVarga JZwolinski SBajwa SLittle DHood OGC ACRS W. Dean, 017G-21 C. Cowgill, Region I P. Coates, 013H15 (TSB Background Books)

H. Miller, Region I S. Ebneter, Region II A. B. Beach, Region III L. J. Callan, Region IV l

l 4(stir ton'irT Cpf. j

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236M034&oldid=3273812"