ML053220600
| ML053220600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/2004 |
| From: | Marksberry D Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | David Loveless NRC Region 4 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0307 | |
| Download: ML053220600 (3) | |
Text
DavidAloveles -Palo Verde 1 and 3 Page 111 From:
Don Marksberry To:
David Loveless Date:
Fri, Jul 2, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject:
Palo Verde 1 and 3 I set complexity to recovery offsite power from moderately (x2) to highly (x5) for OEP-XHE-NOREC-ST (1 hr). Timing and stress are not affected due to the other available path to the other vital bus. For longer recovery times, they have time to "fix" the breaker by cycling or use other available path, so no adjustments were made to OEP-XHE-NOREC-BD and OEP-XHE-NOREC-SL. This increases CCDP from 2.8E-5 (moderately complex) to 3.5E-5 (highly complex).
Do you know much more of the CCF nature of the breakers? If this was truly a CCF, then Unit 2 recovery would be affected. If the same complexity adjustment is made to OEP-XHE-NOREC-ST, then CCDP would increase from 6.4e-4 (pt est) to 7.6e-4. I have the CCF experts here looking at the modeling to verify CCF is negligable comparied with the XHE.
don CC:
Gary Demoss I M J<
NiDad oveiless - Fwd: Palo Verde analysis -revised (editorial changes)
Page 1 From:
Don Marksberry To:
David Loveless Date:
Mon, Jul 5, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject:
Fwd: Palo Verde analysis - revised (editorial changes)
The lastest.
Just some cleanup---not significant changes from last week.
David ! oveless - Palo Verde analysis - revised (editorial changes)
Page1 From:
Don Marksberry To:
internet: buelrf inel.gov; Joseph Minarick Date:
Mon, Jul 5, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject:
Palo Verde analysis - revised (editorial changes)
For your information. This would make an excellent text book example in the RASP analysis handbook.
CC:
Donald Dube; Patrick O'Reilly