L-12-449, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, AC Sources - Operating: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:...... | ||
RrstEnetgy Nuclear Operating Company VIto A. KsmInsksB Vice President January 7, 2013 L-12-449 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Perry Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 97 10 Center Road Perry. Ohio 44081 440-280-5382 Fax: 440-280-8029 10 CFR 50.90 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, HAC Sources - Operating" (TAC No. ME9006l. | |||
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, HAC Sources - Operating" (TAC No. ME9006l . | |||
By correspondence dated July 3,2012 (Accession No. ML12188A001), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request to modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, gAC Sources - Operating," to remove the operating MODE restrictions associated with certain Division 3 surveillance requirements. | By correspondence dated July 3,2012 (Accession No. ML12188A001), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request to modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, gAC Sources - Operating," to remove the operating MODE restrictions associated with certain Division 3 surveillance requirements. | ||
By correspondence dated December 11,2012 (Accession No. ML12341A322), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to complete their review of the proposed change. FENOC's response to this request is attached. | By correspondence dated December 11,2012 (Accession No. ML12341A322), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to complete their review of the proposed change. FENOC's response to this request is attached. | ||
There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal. If there are any questions or additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 315-6810. | There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal. If there are any questions or additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 315-6810. | ||
I declare under penalty of pe~ury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on | I declare under penalty of pe~ury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on | ||
,~ | |||
January ..:..,L, 2012. | January..:..,L, 2012. | ||
SJ;~tJ Vito A. Kaminskas | SJ;~tJ Vito A. Kaminskas | ||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information cc: | |||
Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information cc: | NRC Region III Administrator NRC Resident Inspector NRC Project Manager Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, State of Ohio (NRC Liaison) | ||
Utility Radiological Safety Board | Utility Radiological Safety Board | ||
Attachment L-12-449 Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information Page 1 of2 By correspondence dated July 3,2012, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval. By correspondence dated December 11, 2012, NRC staff requested *additional information to compete its review. The requested information is presented below in bold type, followed by the FENOC response. | Attachment L-12-449 Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information Page 1 of2 By correspondence dated July 3,2012, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval. By correspondence dated December 11, 2012, NRC staff requested *additional information to compete its review. The requested information is presented below in bold type, followed by the FENOC response. | ||
: 1. In Section 3.6 of the LAR, the licensee states, "Historical bus voltage data from performing this SR for Division 3 DG has shown that the voltage during the transient remains within the required voltage range for plant loads. Thus, the voltage transient experienced by loads on the affected bus is minimal." The licensee also stated that because Division 3 power system is an electrically separated distribution system with a dedicated diesel generator, there Is minimal opportunity for these SRs to have an impact on other safety-related plant equipment or normal plant operation. | : 1. In Section 3.6 of the LAR, the licensee states, "Historical bus voltage data from performing this SR for Division 3 DG has shown that the voltage during the transient remains within the required voltage range for plant loads. Thus, the voltage transient experienced by loads on the affected bus is minimal." The licensee also stated that because Division 3 power system is an electrically separated distribution system with a dedicated diesel generator, there Is minimal opportunity for these SRs to have an impact on other safety-related plant equipment or normal plant operation. | ||
a) Provide the key voltage data that were monitored during the last performance of SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, and 3.8.1.16. | a) Provide the key voltage data that were monitored during the last performance of SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, and 3.8.1.16. | ||
===Response=== | ===Response=== | ||
For each surveillance requirement (SR) listed below, voltage recorded and acceptance criteria are in volts alternating current NAC), unless otherwise noted. | For each surveillance requirement (SR) listed below, voltage recorded and acceptance criteria are in volts alternating current NAC), unless otherwise noted. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.9 Voltage data is not specifically recorded for this SR, which is a partial load rejection test. However, voltage data is recorded for SR 3.8.1.10, which is a full load rejection test. The results of SR 3.B.1.1 0 bound the results of SR 3.8.1.9, thus actual voltage data for SR 3.8.1.9 is not required to be documented. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.10 Maximum voltage recorded: 4969 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is less than or equal to 5000 VAC. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.11 Steady state voltage recorded: 4150 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.12 Steady state voltage recorded: 4218 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.13 Voltage data is not specifically recorded for this SR. This test demonstrates that diesel generator (DG) non-critical protective functions are bypassed on an emergency core cooling system initiation test signal and critical protective functions trip the DG to avert SUbstantial damage to the DG unit. | ||
o | o SR 3.8.1.16 Steady state voltage recorded: 4322 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC. | ||
Attachment L-12-449 Page 2 of 2 b) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will have minimal and acceptable voltage transients on loads of the affected bus and on the equipment of the connected electrical distribution system. | Attachment L-12-449 Page 2 of 2 b) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will have minimal and acceptable voltage transients on loads of the affected bus and on the equipment of the connected electrical distribution system. | ||
===Response=== | ===Response=== | ||
Response to RAI 1.c contains this information. | Response to RAI 1.c contains this information. | ||
c) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will not perturb the electrical distribution system and affect other safety-related equipment or normal plant operation. | c) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will not perturb the electrical distribution system and affect other safety-related equipment or normal plant operation. | ||
===Response=== | ===Response=== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 60: | ||
Therefore, since there were no perturbations on the emergency bus or electrical distribution system, no effects on safety-related equipment connected to the emergency buses, and no effects on normal plant operation when the SRs were performed off-line, similar results are expected when the SRs are performed on-line. | Therefore, since there were no perturbations on the emergency bus or electrical distribution system, no effects on safety-related equipment connected to the emergency buses, and no effects on normal plant operation when the SRs were performed off-line, similar results are expected when the SRs are performed on-line. | ||
: 2. In Section 3.1, page five of the LAR, the licensee states, "Finally, testing in the proposed manner does not significantly Interfere with normal plant operation." | : 2. In Section 3.1, page five of the LAR, the licensee states, "Finally, testing in the proposed manner does not significantly Interfere with normal plant operation." | ||
Discuss all potential Interferences Identified during the above testing, which could impact with normal plant operation and provide technical bases showing that these interferences will not have any adverse Impact on the plant safety systems and plant operation. | Discuss all potential Interferences Identified during the above testing, which could impact with normal plant operation and provide technical bases showing that these interferences will not have any adverse Impact on the plant safety systems and plant operation. | ||
===Response=== | ===Response=== | ||
There are no physical interferences to testing in the proposed manner. The intent of the sentence, as it was written, is to state that performance of the SRs [testing] on-line will not have an impact on plant safety systems nor normal plant operation any more than the performance of any other SR on-line. Before SRs are performed, whether on-line or off-line, they are planned, scheduled, and appropriately staffed. As part *of the pre-performance process, equipment availability and current plant conditions are considered, plant risk is evaluated, and requisite administrative controls are put into place. As such, performance of these SRs on-line will not interfere with normal plant operation nor impact plant safety systems.}} | There are no physical interferences to testing in the proposed manner. The intent of the sentence, as it was written, is to state that performance of the SRs [testing] on-line will not have an impact on plant safety systems nor normal plant operation any more than the performance of any other SR on-line. Before SRs are performed, whether on-line or off-line, they are planned, scheduled, and appropriately staffed. As part *of the pre-performance process, equipment availability and current plant conditions are considered, plant risk is evaluated, and requisite administrative controls are put into place. As such, performance of these SRs on-line will not interfere with normal plant operation nor impact plant safety systems.}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:20, 11 January 2025
| ML13007A470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2013 |
| From: | Kaminskas V FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| L-12-449, TAC ME9006 | |
| Download: ML13007A470 (3) | |
Text
......
RrstEnetgy Nuclear Operating Company VIto A. KsmInsksB Vice President January 7, 2013 L-12-449 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Perry Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 97 10 Center Road Perry. Ohio 44081 440-280-5382 Fax: 440-280-8029 10 CFR 50.90 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, HAC Sources - Operating" (TAC No. ME9006l.
By correspondence dated July 3,2012 (Accession No. ML12188A001), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request to modify Technical Specification 3.8.1, gAC Sources - Operating," to remove the operating MODE restrictions associated with certain Division 3 surveillance requirements.
By correspondence dated December 11,2012 (Accession No. ML12341A322), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to complete their review of the proposed change. FENOC's response to this request is attached.
There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal. If there are any questions or additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 315-6810.
I declare under penalty of pe~ury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
,~
January..:..,L, 2012.
SJ;~tJ Vito A. Kaminskas
Attachment:
Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information cc:
NRC Region III Administrator NRC Resident Inspector NRC Project Manager Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, State of Ohio (NRC Liaison)
Utility Radiological Safety Board
Attachment L-12-449 Response to December 11, 2012 Request for Additional Information Page 1 of2 By correspondence dated July 3,2012, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a license amendment request for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval. By correspondence dated December 11, 2012, NRC staff requested *additional information to compete its review. The requested information is presented below in bold type, followed by the FENOC response.
- 1. In Section 3.6 of the LAR, the licensee states, "Historical bus voltage data from performing this SR for Division 3 DG has shown that the voltage during the transient remains within the required voltage range for plant loads. Thus, the voltage transient experienced by loads on the affected bus is minimal." The licensee also stated that because Division 3 power system is an electrically separated distribution system with a dedicated diesel generator, there Is minimal opportunity for these SRs to have an impact on other safety-related plant equipment or normal plant operation.
a) Provide the key voltage data that were monitored during the last performance of SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, and 3.8.1.16.
Response
For each surveillance requirement (SR) listed below, voltage recorded and acceptance criteria are in volts alternating current NAC), unless otherwise noted.
o SR 3.8.1.9 Voltage data is not specifically recorded for this SR, which is a partial load rejection test. However, voltage data is recorded for SR 3.8.1.10, which is a full load rejection test. The results of SR 3.B.1.1 0 bound the results of SR 3.8.1.9, thus actual voltage data for SR 3.8.1.9 is not required to be documented.
o SR 3.8.1.10 Maximum voltage recorded: 4969 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is less than or equal to 5000 VAC.
o SR 3.8.1.11 Steady state voltage recorded: 4150 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC.
o SR 3.8.1.12 Steady state voltage recorded: 4218 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC.
o SR 3.8.1.13 Voltage data is not specifically recorded for this SR. This test demonstrates that diesel generator (DG) non-critical protective functions are bypassed on an emergency core cooling system initiation test signal and critical protective functions trip the DG to avert SUbstantial damage to the DG unit.
o SR 3.8.1.16 Steady state voltage recorded: 4322 VAC This test is satisfactory if the voltage recorded is greater than or equal to 3900 VAC and less than or equal to 4400VAC.
Attachment L-12-449 Page 2 of 2 b) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will have minimal and acceptable voltage transients on loads of the affected bus and on the equipment of the connected electrical distribution system.
Response
Response to RAI 1.c contains this information.
c) Confirm that performing these SRs at power will not perturb the electrical distribution system and affect other safety-related equipment or normal plant operation.
Response
A historical review of the control room narrative log and corrective action program database confirmed there were no perturbations on the emergency bus or electrical distribution system resulting from the performance of these SRs. Additionally, this review confirmed there were no effects on safety-related equipment connected to the emergency buses and no impact on normal plant operation.
Voltage requirements on the emergency bus and electrical distribution system are not affected by specific plant modes of operation (that is, either on-line of off-line plant operation).
Therefore, since there were no perturbations on the emergency bus or electrical distribution system, no effects on safety-related equipment connected to the emergency buses, and no effects on normal plant operation when the SRs were performed off-line, similar results are expected when the SRs are performed on-line.
- 2. In Section 3.1, page five of the LAR, the licensee states, "Finally, testing in the proposed manner does not significantly Interfere with normal plant operation."
Discuss all potential Interferences Identified during the above testing, which could impact with normal plant operation and provide technical bases showing that these interferences will not have any adverse Impact on the plant safety systems and plant operation.
Response
There are no physical interferences to testing in the proposed manner. The intent of the sentence, as it was written, is to state that performance of the SRs [testing] on-line will not have an impact on plant safety systems nor normal plant operation any more than the performance of any other SR on-line. Before SRs are performed, whether on-line or off-line, they are planned, scheduled, and appropriately staffed. As part *of the pre-performance process, equipment availability and current plant conditions are considered, plant risk is evaluated, and requisite administrative controls are put into place. As such, performance of these SRs on-line will not interfere with normal plant operation nor impact plant safety systems.