ML022470095

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DC Cook, Unit 2 - Review Regarding License Amendment Request, Reactor Coolant System Pressure Temperature Curves, Dated July 23, 2002
ML022470095
Person / Time
Site: Cook American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 09/06/2002
From: Stang J
NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3
To:
NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3
References
TAC MB5699
Download: ML022470095 (3)


Text

September 6, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: John F. Stang, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 /RA/

Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 - REVIEW REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE CURVES, DATED JULY 23, 2002 (TAC NO. MB5699)

During the review of the subject proposed license amendment, the staff determined additional information was necessary to complete its review. Attached is the draft request for additional information (RAI). In accordance with Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction 101, the draft RAI will be e-mailed to the licensee and a conference call will be arranged to discuss the RAI. Once the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and the licensee have a common understanding of the information required, the RAI will be issued formally to the licensee.

Docket No. 50-316

Attachment:

As stated

D. C. COOK UNIT 2 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR SUBMITTAL AEP:NRC 2349-012612 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE CURVES DATED JULY 23, 2002 By letter dated July 23, 2002, the Indiana Michigan Power Company licensee for the Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, submitted information and requested approval for technical specification changes to revise the pressure vessel pressure temperature curves. The submittal included WCAP-13515 Rev. 1 the surveillance capsule report for capsule U. In the context of the revision of WCAP-13515, please consider the following questions.

1. What is the physical basis for the calculated peak inside surface E > 1.0 MeV at 32 effective full power years to be lower than the original FERRET adjusted value? This plant has a thermal shield and the transport cross sections were changed to ENDF/B-VI which should have increased the original value.
2. Is the old and the new FERRET the same? (We noted that the calculated value was used and not the FERRET adjusted value).
3. The former plates have been added to the revised analysis. Were any of the dosimeters in the shadow of the former plates? Is the peak location in the shadow of the former plates?
4. The -fission, U-235 impurity, and Pu-239 built-in corrections (Page 6-8) seem to be new in the revision. How were these corrections derived?
5. It is stated that a 10 percent positive bias was applied to the neutron sources for cycles 13 and on. Was there also an assumption of low leakage loadings made for the same cycles?

ML022470095 OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/LA NAME JStang THarris DATE 09/06/02 09/06/02