ML20236S147
| ML20236S147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1998 |
| From: | Richard Ennis NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Keiser H Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| TAC-MA2060, NUDOCS 9807240154 | |
| Download: ML20236S147 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _-__ --_ _ _ - _ -
July 17,1998 Mr. Harold W. Keiser.
Chief Nuclear Officer & President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ULTIMATE HEAT SINK TEMPERATURE LIMITS FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION (TAC NO. MA2060)
Dear Mr. Keiser:
In a letter dated June 12,1998, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted an
- application for an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Hope Creek Generating Station. The proposed amendment would modify the TSs associated with the Ultimate Heat Sink in order to provide increased operational flexibility during periods of elevated river water-temperature.
The NRC staff is reviewing your subrnittal and has determined that addiiional information is -
required to complete the review.; The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure. Your submittal requested prompt NRC review of the proposed changes to support plant operation during the upcoming period of elevated river water temperature. Therefore, the staff requests that the additional information be provided as soon as possible in order to expedite the review.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1420.
Sincerely, Ri ard B. Ennis, Acting Project Manager-Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_ Docket No. 50 354.
/
Enclosure:
Request for AdditionalInformation ggs bDddih hy y,m, 8
D 1.
. cc w/ encl: See next page
/
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File REnnis GHubbard OGC PUBLIC.
TClark JLyons ACRS l
PDI-2 Reading ~
LMarsh DJackson JLinville, RGN-l
. JZwolinski
- CBerlinger KKavanagh RCapra '
RGallo GWest u - M/ ' O OFFICE PDI-2/PM
' PDl-3/LA SPLB/DC C
SbS$/Yd PDI-2/D TCl5Nb LMadb b o' CBerlinger RCaN NAME.
REnnis DATE 1/ L1/98 7 //7/98 7//'298 h/[/98 7/ [ 798 7 /d /98
. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.. DOCUMENT NAME: HC2060.RAI -
9807240154 990717 li PDR-ADOCK 05000354 3
P.
,j
SAth 1
UNITED STATES
{m j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006H001 July 17, 1998 Mr. Harold W. Keiser Chief Nuclear Officer & President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ULTIMATE HEAT SINK TEMPERATURE LIMITS FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION (TAC NO. MA2060).
Dear Mr. Keiser:
In a letter dated June 12,1998, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted an application for an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Hope Creek Generating Station. The proposed amendment would modify the TSs associated with the Ultimate Heat Sink in order to provide increased operational flexibility during periods of elevated river water temperature.
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete the review. The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure. Your submittal requested prompt NRC review of the proposed changes to support I
plant operation during the upcoming period of elevated river water temperature. Therefore, the l
staff requests that the additional information be provided as soon as possible in order to expedite I
the review.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1420.
Sincerely, l
Richard B. Ennis, Acting Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-354
Enclosure:
Request for AdditionalInformation j
cc w/ encl: See next page i
)
l Mr. Harold W. Keiser
' Hope Creek Generating Station Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire Manager-Joint Generation Nuclear Business Unit - N21 Atlantic Energy P.O. Box 236 6801 Black Horse Pike Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Egg Harbor Twp., NJ 08234-4130 Hope Creek Resident inspector Richard Hartung U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Service Evaluation Drawer 050g Board of Regulatory Commissioners Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 l
Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Operations Lower Alloways Creek Township Nuclear Department clo Mary O. Henderson, Clerk P.O. Box 236 Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 General Manager - Hope Creek Operations Mr. Elbert Simpson Hope Creek Generating Station Senior Vice President-P.O. Box 236 Nuclear Engineering Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Manager-Licensing and Regulation Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Nuclear Business Unit - N21
)
P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Regional Administrator, Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Dr. Jill Lipoti, Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ULTIMATE HEAT SINK TEMPERATURE LIMITS FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION Questions from Plant Systems Branch 1.
Technical Specification (TS) Amendment 106 is referred to in the June 12,1998, submittal.
However, TS Amendment 106 increased the ultimate heat sink (UHS) water level and decreased the UHS temperature limit, and the June 12,1998, submittal proposes to increase the UHS temperature limit. How can these analyses be compared? What changed between the analysis performed in Amendment 106 to justify the 85 'F UHS temperature limit and the June 12,1998, submittal to justify the 89 *F limit (e.g., uncertainties, assumptions, methodology)?
2.
Proposed TS 3.7.1.3 states that with river water temperature in excess of 85 F, continued plant operation is permitted provided that both emergency overboard discharge valves are open and the emergency discharge pathways are available. How does the licensee ensure that power is removed to the breakers for the emergency overboard discharge valves and the station service water system (SSWS) header isolation valves to prevent inadvertent closure of the associated motor-operated valves?
3.
The submittal includes the removal of several operator actions due to automatic actions that occur during loss of offsite power (LOP) conditions, etc. Assuming that these operator actions were proceduralized, were 10 CFR 50.59 screenings performed on the removal of these actions? Since some of the operator actions were reduced due to automatic actions, did the licensee account for the time that an eperator would take to verify the automatic actions?
4.
The June 12,1998, submittal states that in cases where SSWS/ safety auxiliary cooling system (SACS) temperatures cannot be maintained and a LOP and/or loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) occurs, the current SSWS abnormal operating procedure will direct operators to isolate SACS flow to the fuel pool heat exchangers for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. What effect does this have on the spent fuel pool temperature and the t!me-to-boil?
5.
Proposed TS 3.7.1.2.a.3 allows operators to assess the operability of a SACS loop when its associated SSWS loop is declared inoperable. How is this consistent with Generic Letter 91-18? How would this be controlled?
6.
Discuss the proposed amendment as related'io each of the following Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) licensee event reports (LERs): 96-022,96-015, 96-009,95-037, 95-015, and 90-014. Explain how these situations are not a problem or will not reoccur for HCGS.
7.
The licensee's analyses assume design fouling or maximum fouling conditions for the heat exchangers. Explain how this will provide conservative results, as opposed to clean heat exchangers, for the cooling water exit tempemtures. Altematively, provide the calculation (s) using conservative heat transfer values that will result in the maximum cooling water (i.e., SACS, SSWS, UHS) temperatures.
ENCLOSURE
. 8.
Proposed TS 3.7.1.3 uses the terms " river water temperature" and " ultimate heat sink temperature." Confirm that these are the same temperature measurement. Explain where it/they are measured; where it/they read out; if any alarms exist and the temperature at which they alarm.
9.
In the current action statement for TS 3.7.1.3, certain equipment is listed that must be operable when the riverwater temperature is above 85 'F. The licensee proposes to change this to above 88 'F and remove the equipment operability requirements between 85 *F and 88 'F. Please justify this reduction.
- 10. Provide flow balance diagrams of the various configurations that will be allowed for the SSWS, SACS, etc. Specifically, but not limited to the scenarios for the maximum allowed UHS temperature, LOP /LOCA, and worst case scenario (if not one of the previous).
Describe the conditions used in the evaluation.
- 11. Similar to Question 10, provide heat balance diagrams. Relate these, if appropriate, to the PROTO-FLO data sheets used in the evaluation.
12, in Attachment 4, Sections 4.1.4,4.1.7,4.1.8,4.1.9, and 4.1.10, the licensee describes automatic or conditional loads. How were these loads used in the evaluation?
- 13. The licensee's analysis for the residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchanger assumes no tubes are plugged. Verify that currently no RHR heat exchanger tubes are pluggd.
- 14. The licensee's analysis for the RHR heat exchanger is only valid if a minimum RHR flow rate of 10,000 gpm is supplied. How is this parameter ensured?
- 15. How will the 95 'F and 100 'F temperature limits on SACS be ensured?
- 16. In Attachment 4, Section 6.4, the licensee states that one SACS pump per loop, as allowed by technical specifications, is inadequate for RHR heat exchanger cooling if the SACS temperature is 100 'F. The licensee concludes that this alignment will not be allowed. How will this be ensured? Also, the licensee states that the current UHS limit for this alignment is 88 'F; provide a reference for this statement.
I
- 17. In Attachment 4, Section 6.4, the licensee states that all the analysis cases, except normal i
operation, are for a LOP /SSE event. For the whole submittal, verify that a LOP /SSE is the I
most limiting scenario for the UHS / SACS temperature or explain any other limiting scenarios l
that were used. Specifically, verify that it is more limiting than a LOCA/ LOP.
- 18. In Attachment 4, Section 6.10, does the increase in room temperature to 125 *F qualify these rooms as harsh er;vironments as defined by the HCGS environmental qualification (EQ) pregram? Also, does the proposed setpcint for the redundant heat exchanger (122 'F
+/- 2.3 'F) provide adequate time for cooling such that the room temperature does not exceed 125 *F?
l
- 19. In Attachment 4, Pages 2 and 22, the licensee refers to the UHS temperature limit being 5 degrees higher. In the TS, the ultimate heat sink temperature is proposed to be raised by 2 degrees. Please reconcile this conflict in descriptions.
l 1
1 L__________________.___________
J
3-
- 20. Provide an explanation /roadmao for the data printouts in Attachment 4. Include where the information is from (e.g., SAR, c.oeration data), how the information was used, and any assumptions in using the informaJon.
- 21. Explain the footnotes in Attachmerd (1)i.) Attachment 4, "Reynolds number outside range of equation applicability" and "with zero fouling the test heat load could not be achieved."
Questians from Ocarator i Imnalna and Human Performance Branch i
1.
Discuss any new operator actions that would be required as a result of the technical specification amendment request.
2.
The markup of the UHS LCO ACTION statement does not appear to contain any
- additional" operator actions. Please clarify the following statement (page 6, paragraph 2):
At 88 *F, additional actions to maintain continued plant operation would be required.
These actions are contained in the proposed UHS LCO ACTION Statement and are also referenced by t.COs 3.7.1.1,3.7.1.2 and 3.8.1.1.
3.
State the operator actions that are no longer required and discuss specifically what the engineering analyses indicated in the following statement (page 6, paragraph 3):
As a result of the Engineering analyses of SSWS/ SACS /RHR, the proposed UHS temperature limits actually require less operator actions than those limits contained in TS Amendment No.106.
4.
Provide specifics on why the action in the statement that follows is no longer required l
(page 7, paragraph 1):
l l
However, isolating / throttling of RACS flow under LOP conditions will no longer be required. The revised SSWS/ SACS / UHS analyses has supported the removal of this l
post-transient operator action.
l l
S.
I' lease explain the apparent inconsistency in the following two statements (page 7, Paragraph 1):
l The actions associated with isolating / throttling SSWS flow to the RACS heat l
exchangers are not necessary under 1.OCA conditions since the SSWS flow j
to those components is automatically isolated.
Specifically, in cases where SSWS/ SACS temperatures can not be maintained and a LOP and/or LOCA occurs, the current SSWS abnormal operating procedure will direct that operators isolate SACS flow to the fuel pool heat exchangers for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, Isolate SSWS Row to one Reactor Auxiliaries Coolina System (RACS) (see UFSAR Fiaure 9.2-3) heat exchancer and throttle SSWS Row to the remainina RACA heat exchanger [ emphasis added).
1 s
4 6.
Describe specific operator training that may be needed regarding the TS amendment request.
7.
Describe the schodule for procedural revisions related to the TS amendment request.
8.
Provide the results of any sensitivity study that has evaluated the significance of the subject reduced operator actions.
9.
Explain how the operator accomplishes the following (p. 3/4-7-3 of TS): "... assess operability of the associated SACS loop."
Questions from Containment Systems Branch 1.
PSE&G has indicated that the General Electric Company (CE) SHEX computer code was used in the containment analysis associated with the UHS TS change request. This was not the same computer code used for the original containment analysis. The results of the SHEX computer code can be accepted on a plant specific basis provided that bench marking analysis is perforyned against the original code. Provide the results of the bench marking analysis of the SHEX computer code.
l I
j