RC-99-0026, Provides Response to NRC RAI Re TS Change Request Re Best Estimate Analyzer for Core Operations - Nuclear

Provides Response to NRC RAI Re TS Change Request Re Best Estimate Analyzer for Core Operations - Nuclear

ML20203C678
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	02/05/1999
From:	Gabe Taylor SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	Padovan L NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RC-99-0026, RC-99-26, NUDOCS 9902120181
Download: ML20203C678 (4)

Text

-

o 9 <

. (.!

February 5,1999 8CEd A SCANA COMPANY

, RC-99-0026 l l

x:.

s Document Control Desk ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, DC 20555

h,[p,I" Attention

Mr. L. M. Padovan

- Nxlect opemtion Gentlemen:

Subject:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50/395 OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 i RESPONSE TO THE NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST ssh(spimpurs e,cas(c- . BEST ESTIMATE ANALYZER FOR CORE OPERATIONS -

1 Vit il $mns Nudect Statis NUCLEAR (BEACON) - TSP 970006

.Jdinsvilie. South Curolina -

3 065

Reference:

Gary J. Taylor, SCE&G, to NRC, RC-98-0168, dated September 18,1998

$[$ Pursuant to a telephone conversation with Mr. L. M. F adovan on January 14, 1999, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) hereby provides responses to the Request for Additional information. This information supports the Technical Specification Change Request submitted in the above referenced letter. This information is provided as an attachment to this letter.

These statements and matters set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. \

\

\

. 1

~ ~

x 4, 9902120181 990205 3 PDR ADOCK 05000395 P PDR u.

. S r ', NUCLEAR EXCELLENCE - A SUMMER TRADITIONI f ,b

- _ _ . _ _ .. _ _ . -. - _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _

L - -

Document Control Desk

-TSF 970006 i RC I99-0026 - l Page 2 of 2 l

)

Should you have questions, please call Mr. Philip A. Rose at (803) 345-4052. )

Very trul ours, 1

i i

% r L ry J

. Ta f ,

1

( PAR /GJT/dr  !

c: J. L. Skolds Paulett Ledbetter L W. F. Conway J. B. Knotts, Jr.

- R. R. Mahan (w/o Attachment) M. K. Batavia R. J. White RTS (TSP 970006) f L.A.Reyes File (813.20)

[

NRC Resident inspector DMS (RC-99-0026)

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA  : '

TO WIT.. :

COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD  :

-i

. I hereby certify that on the d day of 4xAm, 1911_, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of South Carolina pers6nally appeared Gary J. Taylor, being duly. sworn, and states that he is Vice President, Nuclear Operations of the South j

- Carolina Electric & Gas Company, a corporation of the State of South Carolina, ttost he  !

provides the foregoing response for the purposes therein set forth, that the statements i made are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and that  ;

he was authorized to provide the response on behalf of said Corporation. l WITNESS my Hand and Notarial Seal M b-i,

. , ~

/ N ..ar'y Public 4 ' ~

My Commission Expires 74 n . zur

= Date l .

e b'-

l 4 P

4 n

,..w. .

y. e -, -- s --

p.. . . . -

Document Control Desk i i'

Attachment ,

!- - TSP 970006 i RC-99-0026 +

1

- Page 1 of 2- ,

j. l i- Response to Request for Additional Information I g BEACON Technical Specification Change Request '

1. Section 4.0 " Technical Position" of the Best Estimate Analyzer for Core  ;

j Operations (BEACON) Topical Report (WCAP-12472-P-A) and the " Conclusions" portion of our February 16,1994, topical report Safety Evaluation Hoport contain conditions for NRC approval. How are you complying with these conditions?  ;

RESPONSE: Although_ not specifically described in our submittal, cycle specific BEACON calibrations performed before cycle startup and at BOC will ensure that  :

power peaking uncertainties provide 95% probability upper tolerance limits at the 95%  !

confidence level. These calibrations are performed using Westinghouse approved l methodology.. Until these calibrations are complete, more conservative default j uncertainties are' applied. The calibrations will be documented and retained as '

records.

VCSNS is a ' Westinghouse 3-loop NSSS with Westinghouse movable .incore -

instrumentation. All fuel is presently of Westinghouse manufacture. Therefore, VCSNS does not differ significantly from the plants that form the WCAP data-base arxl

- no additional review of WCAP applicability to VCSNS is necessary.

Because the WCAP describes an application of BEACON where the core operating limits are changed and VCSNS proposes to use BEACON as a core Technical Specification monitor of our present limits, the comments of section 4.0, #3 do not directly apply to our submittal.

it

2. In the third paragraph on rage 1'of your safety evaluation, you state that you determined uncertainties usi., j RMC epproved methodology. Is WCAP-12472

. the referenced NRCg-yc;d methodology?

. RESPONSE: Yes, this docement was approved by the NRC February 16,1994.

m _ _ _ . . _ _ ~ . . __ . _ _

6 . ,

4. *

}. Dogument Control Desk ,

l Attachment i

.

TSP 970006  ;

. RC-99-0026 -

- Page 2 of 2 1 1

e I 3. In the first peregraph on page 2 of your esfoty evaluation, you stated that

applying BEACON to VCSNS la more restrictive than that approved in the WCAP.

Please provide clarification to this statement.

i ,

. . m j RESPONSE: The WCAP describes an application of BEACON where the AFD and l QPTR core power distribution limits are eliminated from Technical Specifications and  !

!. replaced with BEACON calculated limits. These limits would be less restrictive than  !

j present VCS core power distribution limits. .VCSNS proposes to' use BEACON to  !'

j. monitor core power distribution against our present limits. In this manner, our proposed

^

appiation is more restrictive as we are maintaining the more restrictive core power

• distribution limits defined in the Technical Specifications.

4. In the second paragraph on.page 2 'of your safety evaluation, the last +

! sentence states that more frequent surveillance rney be required under certain ai

} circumstances. Please state what those certain circumstances are, and why they I l . are impacted.

i .

i RESPONSE: This is a reference to those present Technical Specifications that would

[ require power distribution surveillance to be performed more frequently than every 31 days. Examples are rod misalignment and inoperable Nuclear Instrumente+ ion system 0 requirements, Technical Specifications 3.1.3.1.d.3.c, and 4.2.4.2. These @ S.oecs

] are not affected by BEACON except that BEACON may be used to perform the required

core power distribution measurement instead of the Movable Incore Detector System

(MIDS).

i  :

3  !

l