ML051110202
| ML051110202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/07/2005 |
| From: | Richard Ennis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Daflucas R Entergy Nuclear Northeast |
| References | |
| Download: ML051110202 (4) | |
Text
Rick Ennis - Additional EPU Draft SPLB RAIs Paqe I I Rj(: EP!IS. 7 Additional EPU Draft SPLB RAls Page 1 1 From:
Rick Ennis To:
Ronda Daflucas Date:
4/7/05 3:37PM
Subject:
Additional EPU Draft SPLB RAls
- Ronda, Attached are three additional draft EPU RAls from SPLB. As I mentioned yesterday, please let me know when we can have a conference call to discuss to ensure you undestand the questions and to establish an RAI response date so I can issue these via a formal letter.
- thanks, Rick 301-415-1420 CC:
Brooke Poole; Devender Reddy; James Tatum; Jim DeVincentis; Steve Jones
I c:\\teMD\\GWI00001.TMP Pagie 1 I c:\\temD\\GWIOOOO1.TMP Paae I II Mail Envelope Properties (42558BF0.315: 15: 20516)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Additional EPU Draft SPLB RAIs 4/7/05 3:37PM Rick Ennis RXE(nrc.gov Recipients OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 SRJ CC (Steve Jones)
Action Delivered Date & Time 04/07/05 03:37PM TWGWPOOI.HQGWDOOI DKR2 CC (Devender Reddy) owf2_po.OWFNDO JETI CC (James Tatum) owf5po.OWFNDO BDP CC (Brooke Poole) entergy.com jdevinc CC (Jim DeVincentis) rdafluc (Ronda Daflucas)
Post Office OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO 1 TWGWPOOI.HQGWDOO1 owf2po.OWFNDO oxvf5_po.OWFNDO Delivered 04/07/05 03:37PM Pending Pending Pending Pending Route entergy.com Files MESSAGE q23-25v.wpd Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Size 868 11483 Date & Time 04/07/05 03:37PM 04/07/05 02:05PM No None Yes Standard No None Concealed
Subject:
No
I cAtemn\\GW100001.TMP Paqe 2 Security:
Standard To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Immediate Delivered & Opened
- 23.
Internally Generated Missiles (SE Template Section 2.5.1.2.1)
The Vermont Yankee Notes - Matrix 5, for SE 2.5.1.2.1, 'Internally Generated Missiles (Outside Containment)," in Supplement No. 4 dated January 31, 2004, indicates that the "CPPU [constant pressure power uprate] will not result in increases in system pressures or configurations that would affect the impact of internally generated missiles on SSC's
[structures, systems, and components] important to safety. The VYNPS CPPU does not result in any condition (system pressure increase or equipment overspeed) that could result in an increase in the generation of internally generated missiles." However, seemingly inconsistent with this conclusion, the high pressure feedwater heaters must be replaced in order to accommodate higher extraction pressures and EPU operation will require increased feedwater system flow and possibly higher feedwater system pressure. Also, it is not clear to what extent transient conditions were considered in assessing the impact of the EPU on the likelihood and consequences of internally generated missiles. Please provide additional information to address these considerations. Note, if SSCs important to safety are not located within the missile strike zone of a particular missile hazard, specific analysis of that particular hazard is not required.
- 24.
Turbine Generator (SE Template Section 2.5.1.2.2)
The licensee indicated in the supplement dated July 2, 2004, in response to RAI SPLB-A-3, that the turbine trip hardware modification design evaluated the overspeed trip setpoints and determined that no changes are required. This is not consistent with the discussion of turbine modifications that are described in Attachment 3, page 2, of the October 28, 2003, submittal and Attachment 1, page 22 of the February 24, 2005, submttial which state: "Modify turbine control and overspeed setpoint for CPPU conditions." Please explain this apparent inconsistency.
- 25.
Liquid Waste Management Systems (SE Template Section 2.5.5.2)
The CPPU topical report indicates that review of liquid waste management systems should be completed on a plant specific basis, and RS-001 includes additional review considerations that are not specifically recognized by the CPPU topical report. In order to fully address these considerations, additional information is required. Section 8.1 of the CPPU Safety Analysis Report (Attachment 6 to the application dated September 10, 2003) indicates that the total volume of liquid processed waste will not increase appreciably as a result of the EPU. Please explain how much liquid waste processing capacity is needed for EPU and how this determination was made relative to the VYNPS licensing basis criteria, and compare this capacity to the actual capacity that is available.