ML20247L694

Forwards RAI Re Util 980128 Proposed Amend to TS 3.4.2.1, Safety/Relief Valves. Response Requested within 30 Days

ML20247L694
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/18/1998
From:	Kugler A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO.
References
TAC-MA0720, TAC-MA720, NUDOCS 9805260048
Download: ML20247L694 (3)

Text

- _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ . - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

L May 18, 1998 I

< _. ^

1 Mr. Douglas R. Gips n L-A Senior Vice Pr:sident l Nuclear Generation L Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway ,

Newport, Michigan 48166 e

SUBJECT:

' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT FOR SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE SETPOINTTOLERANCE AT FERMI 2 (TAC NO. MA0720)

Dear Mr. Gipson:

By a letter dated January 28,1998 (NRC-98-0011), the Detroit Edison Company (DECO) requested an amendment to technical specification 3.4.2.1, " Safety / Relief Valves." . The amendment would change the setpoint tolerance for the safety / relief valves from *1 percent to

.i3 percent.

4 Additional information, as discussed in the enclosure, is requested in order for the staff to complete its review.- NRC requests that DECO respond within 30 days.

If you should have any questions regarding this request,'please contact me at 301-415-2828.

Sincerely, lel' l

Andrew'J. Kugler, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341 -

Enclosure:

As stated l I

cc w/ encl: See next page' .

DISTRIBUTION. bD F NS t r lDecket Filej PUBLIC -

PD3-1 RF OGC

-ACRS BBurgess, Rlli (BLB)

EAdensam, EGA1 GHammer 4

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\WPDOCS\ FERMI \FE-A0720.RAI

v. . .e m. mee m ii.r v - cm - - r - em en ownm.nv.nce v - = c.

OFFICE: PM:PD31 lE LA:PD31 . E C:EMEB @l C D:PD31 C NAME AKugler:db & CJamerson (ti/ RWessman" ' CACarpentes -

DATE 05/ J 3 /98 () 05/ f3 /98 /) 05/13/98 05/t4 /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

\ \

sa _

9905260048 990518 4{h PDR ADOCK 05000341 P PDR ,

e . . .

.e Mr. Douglas R. Gipson . Fermi 2 -

l Detroit Edison Company cc:

I John Flynn, Esquire Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Company 4 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division I. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3423 N. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd j P. O. Box 30630 CPH Mailroom  !

! Lansing, Michigan 48909-8130 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Resident inspector's Office l'

6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Emergency Management Division 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161 -

Regional Administrator, Region ill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road -

Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Norman K. Peterson Director, Nuclear Licensing o Detroit Edison Company l Fermi 2 - 280 TAC l- 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 i

August 1997

)

b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.____ ____. __________ _ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ ____

L t

a- ..

l; ~s REQUESTEORADDITIONAL INFORMATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT FOR SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE SETPOINT TOLERANCE AT FERMI 2

1. In several Licensee Event Reports (LERs), including LER 96-017 and the three subsequent revisions thereto, the licensee reported the setpoint performance for ths plant Target Rock 2-Stage safety / relief valves (SRVs). Several as-found setpoint values were significantly above the +/-1% tolerance in the current technical specifications (TS)

~

and the +/-3% tolerance proposed by the licensee. The analysis prc vided by tha licensee in the submittal da r .ed January 28,1998, is based on the assumption that 11 SRVs are operable (the minimum required by TS) and the setpoints of the operable SRVs are no greater than the nominal values plus 3%.

Describe the corrective action (s) taken or planned to improve the plant SRV setpoint performance. In particular, address whether Detroit Edison Company willinstall new SRV pilot valves with planum ion beam bombarded discs during the next refueling outage. Discuss whether the analysis for the proposed +/-3% 'olerance is bounding for

- the expected performance of the SRVs throughout future operating cycles. If the analysis is not bounding, provide a revised analysis which includes the expected upward setpoint drift of the SRVs.

2. Uncertainties of analysis parameters should be accounted for in the safety analyses used to bound limits defined by the plant TS. Provide a discussior, of the SRV setpoint testing instrument accuracy and how this source of uncertainty is accounted for in the licensee's safety analysis associated with the proposed TS SRV setpoint tolerance.

l l

L i

l ENCLOSURE

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _