ML20248K451
| ML20248K451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1998 |
| From: | Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100128 | |
| Download: ML20248K451 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
Dave Morty.
Southern Nucl:ar Vice President Optrating ccmpany Farley Project P0. Box 1295 Birmingham. Alhama 35201 Tel 205.992.5131 L
SOUTHERN June 2, 1998
@MM Energy to Serve YourWorld' Docket Nos.: 50-348 10 CFR 50.46 50-364 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington,DC 20555 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Peak Clad Temperature Reporting Ladies and Gentlemen:
l In a conference call with the NRC Staff on April 15,1998, the Staff raised two issues of concern. First, the thirty day significant error report submitted by letter dated January 8, 1997 did not include a schedule for re-analysis. Second, in the Farley annual 10CFR50.46 report dated March 25,1996, a change to the accumulator water temperature assumption was reported for Unit 1 (90 F to 120 F). The increased accumulator temperature was explicitly included in a Unit 2 re-analysis. The increased accumulator temperature for Unit 1
{
was incorporated under the 10CFR50.59 process. The 48 F change in peak clad temperature has not been included in determining if a significant error (greater than 50 F) had occurred since the assessment was identified in 1995.
l:
Concerning the re-analysis schedule, it has always been Southern Nuclear's intent to conduct the small break and large break LOCA reanalyzes in conjunction with the Farley uprate.
9 These new LOCA analyses have been completed satisfactorily, approved by the NRC staff, and will be applicable to the Farley units upon implementation of uprate on each unit, currently scheduled for 1998..
gl Additionally, by letter dated March 11,1994, Southern Nuclear indicated that an improved condensation (COSI) model described in WCAP-10054-P-A would be used in the next Farley small break LOCA analysis. However, the small break LOCA analyses conducted in support ofuprate provided adequate margin to regulatory requirements without implementation of
- the COSI model. Consequently, the COSI model was not implemented, and there are currently no plans to use this model in the future.
9806100129 990602 "
PDR A00CK 0500034e P
PDRg
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Concerning the inclusion of the 10CFR50.59 plant modification assessment in the determination of a significant error, Southern Nuclear does not consider assessments I
performed under 10CFR50.59 to be included in the requirement to " estimate the effect of any change to or error in an acceptable evaluation model or in the application of such a model" requirement under 10CFR50.46(aX3Xi). Consequently, the 48 F assessment of 1995 has not been included in determining if a significant error has occurred for 1996,1997, and thus far in 1998. However, Southern Nuclear has reported the 48*F assessment in the 1995,1996, and j
1997 annual reports. Southern Nuclear intends to maintain the position that plant modification assessments performed under 10CFR50.59 are not included in the significant error summation.
Ifyou have any questions, please advise.
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY Dave Morey REM / cit:PCTNRC. DOC cc: Mr. L. A. Reyes, Region II Administrator Mr. J. I. Zimme man, NRR Project Manager Mr. T. M. Ross, Plant Sr. Resident Inspector
. -. -..