ML040480077

Draft Request for Additional Information

ML040480077
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	02/17/2004
From:	Richard Ennis NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Darrell Roberts NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
Ennis R, NRR/DLPM, 415-1420
References
TAC MC0253
Download: ML040480077 (3)

Text

February 17, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Darrell J. Roberts, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/

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

SUBJECT:

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MC0253)

The attached draft request for information (RAI) was transmitted on February 17, 2004, to Ms. Ronda Daflucas of Entergy (the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate a upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensees amendment request for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) dated July 31, 2003, as supplemented on October 10, November 7 (2 letters), December 11 (2 letters), December 30, 2003, and February 10, 2004.

The proposed amendment would revise the VYNPS licensing basis by incorporating full scope application of an Alternative Source Term methodology.

This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensee's request.

Docket No. 50-271

Attachment:

Draft RAI

February 17, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Darrell J. Roberts, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/

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

SUBJECT:

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MC0253)

The attached draft request for information (RAI) was transmitted on February 17, 2004, to Ms. Ronda Daflucas of Entergy (the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate a upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensees amendment request for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) dated July 31, 2003, as supplemented on October 10, November 7 (2 letters), December 11 (2 letters), December 30, 2003, and February 10, 2004.

The proposed amendment would revise the VYNPS licensing basis by incorporating full scope application of an Alternative Source Term methodology.

This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensee's request.

Docket No. 50-271

Attachment:

Draft RAI DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC DRoberts RHernandez PDI-2 Reading REnnis DSolorio ACCESSION NO.: ML040480077 OFFICE PDI-2/PM NAME REnnis DATE 2/17/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM AMENDMENT REQUEST VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 By letter dated July 31, 2003, as supplemented on October 10, November 7 (2 letters),

December 11 (2 letters), December 30, 2003, and February 10, 2004, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) submitted an amendment request for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The proposed amendment would revise the VYNPS licensing basis by incorporating full scope application of an Alternative Source Term methodology.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information the licensee provided that supports the proposed amendment and would like to discuss the following issues to clarify the submittals:

In the response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) No. 2 in the submittal dated February 10, 2004, the licensee stated: "VY also identified an error in establishing the value of 0.8%. The calculation used a non-conservative value for the flow area in the ALT pathway.

Therefore, VY will be making a plant modification involving one of the ALT Pathways to meet the 1% criterion and achieve the analytical value of 0.8%."

The staff would like to discuss the following:

1) What was the error identified in the determination of the "Fraction of MSIV leakage to the HP Turbine"?

2) What is the value of the "Fraction of MSIV leakage to the HP Turbine" without the proposed plant modification?

3) What does proposed plant modification consist of?

4) Which one of the leakage pathways will be modified?

5) When will the modification be completed?

ATTACHMENT