Letter Sequence Draft RAI |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARAEP-NRC-2009-18, License Amendment Request for Adoption TSTF-511, Revision 0, Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 262009-03-19019 March 2009
License Amendment Request for Adoption TSTF-511, Revision 0, Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26
Project stage: Request
AEP-NRC-2009-25, Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Evaluation Model Reanalysis2009-03-30030 March 2009
Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Evaluation Model Reanalysis
Project stage: Request
ML0911700962009-04-27027 April 2009
E-mail Transmitting Acceptance Review of License Amendment Request Regarding Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology
Project stage: Acceptance Review
ML0919802662009-07-17017 July 2009
Draft RAIs for License Amendment Request Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Methodology
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML0919802562009-07-17017 July 2009
E-mail Transmitting Draft Requests for Additional Information Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident License Amendment Request
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML0922400072009-08-11011 August 2009
E-mail Transmitting Revised Draft Requests for Additional Information Large Break LOCA License Amendment Request
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML0922400112009-08-11011 August 2009
Revised Draft Requests for Additional Information Associated with Large Break LOCA License Amendment Request
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML0926100292009-09-22022 September 2009
Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request Associated with Large Break LOCA Analysis Methodology
Project stage: RAI
AEP-NRC-2009-71, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding a License Amendment Request Associated with the Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology2009-11-20020 November 2009
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding a License Amendment Request Associated with the Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML1000403272010-01-12012 January 2010
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure
Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance
ML1017302012010-06-21021 June 2010
Transmitting Draft RAI the Proposed Amendment Concerning Large-Break LOCA
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML1020305552010-07-22022 July 2010
Revised Draft RAI on Boron Precipitation Analysis for the Proposed Large-Break LOCA Amendment
Project stage: Draft RAI
ML1029400062010-10-20020 October 2010
Draft Questions Re Boric Acid Precipitation Analysis for the Proposed Large-Break LOCA Amendment
Project stage: Draft Approval
ML1030505662010-11-0101 November 2010
Draft Request for Additional Information Re. Downcomer Boiling for the Proposed LBLOCA Amendment
Project stage: Draft RAI
AEP-NRC-2011-15, Response to Second Request for Additional Information Regarding Amendment Request Associated with the Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology2011-02-24024 February 2011
Response to Second Request for Additional Information Regarding Amendment Request Associated with the Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology
Project stage: Request
ML1108101032011-03-11011 March 2011
Commitment to Perform Updated Boric Acid Precipitation Analysis for Recirculation Phase of a Postulated Large-Break Loss-Of-coolant Accident
Project stage: Other
AEP-NRC-2011-25, Change to Proposed Technical Specification Page Regarding Large-Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analysis Approval2011-03-25025 March 2011
Change to Proposed Technical Specification Page Regarding Large-Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analysis Approval
Project stage: Other
ML1107307832011-03-31031 March 2011
(CNP-2)-Issuance of Amendment No. 297 Re. Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis
Project stage: Approval
ML11083A0332011-04-12012 April 2011
Withholding from Public Disclosure, Westinghouse Reports, D.C. Cook Unit 2 (AMP) Post-LOCA Responses to Request for Additional Information (Rai), & Supplemental Information to Support Informal NRC Audit of 12 .
Project stage: RAI
ML1114508892011-05-25025 May 2011
Changing a Schedule Conveyed by a Letter Dated 2/24/11 in Support of a Proposed Amendment Regarding the Large-break LOCA Analysis
Project stage: Approval
AEP-NRC-2011-41, Updated Boric Acid Precipitation Analysis for Recirculation Phase of a Postulated Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident2011-06-30030 June 2011
Updated Boric Acid Precipitation Analysis for Recirculation Phase of a Postulated Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident
Project stage: Other
ML11193A1462011-07-27027 July 2011
Determines That Submitted Information Dated 6/30/11 Is Proprietary and Is Withheld from Public Disclosure
Project stage: Other
ML1131202152011-11-0707 November 2011
Inform That TAC ME5865 Will Be Closed and the Issue of Lateral K Factor for LBLOCA Will No Longer Be Pursued Under D. C. Cook Unit 2 Docket
Project stage: Other
2010-06-21
[Table View] |
Similar Documents at Cook |
|---|
|
Text
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING LARGE BREAK LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-316 TAC NO. ME1017 The Reactor Systems Branch staff in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has reviewed the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (CNP-2) license amendment request (LAR) regarding large break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA) analysis methodology and identified areas to be clarified by the Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M).
- 1.
With respect to proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.1, the current value for minimum reactor coolant system (RCS) total flow specified in the TS 3.4.1 Limiting Condition for Operations (LCO) and Surveillance Requirements is 366,400 gpm. The proposed LAR stated that the value of 366,400 gpm is a minimum measured flow value which includes allowances for flow measurement uncertainty. Therefore, based on NRC approved method WCAP-16009-P, the proposed TS change to 3.4.1 will use so-called current practice of the thermal design flow value of 354,000 gpm. It further states that the proposed change will not affect the 354,000 gpm value used in the current and the new LBLOCA analyses.
Please provide the following:
(1) A description to explain that the proposed term of the thermal design flow value is a common industrial practice and identifying applicable examples currently used in U.S.
nuclear power plants; (2) Clarification that the proposed change will not affect the 354,000 gpm value used in the current and the new LBLOCA analyses; (3) A detailed assessment that a 3.4% reduction of the RCS total flow from current value of 366,400 gpm to proposed value of 354,000 gpm will not reduce plant operation safety margin during a LOCA, even considering an accurate flow measurement uncertainty, an uncertainty always exists; and (4) The real minimum RCS flow used in the LBLOCA analysis.
- 2.
In the submittal, it states that the current TS 3.5.2 Actions include a Condition D that allows the unit to be in Mode 1, 2, or 3 for an unlimited amount of time if a Safety Injection (SI) system cross-tie valve is closed, provided that thermal power is reduced to less than or equal to a specified value. It further states that this allowance is justified by the current LBLOCA and SBLOCA analyses. However, the proposed new LBLOCA analysis does not include a condition in which an SI subsystem cross-tie valve is closed.
Therefore, I&M is proposing that Condition D be deleted from the TS 3.5.2 Actions, and reference to Condition D be deleted from Condition A and Condition C.
Please provide the following:
(1) The rationale to delete Condition D which directly provides an action against a situation that an SI system cross-tie valve is closed; (2) The action(s) to be taken if an SI system cross-tie valve is closed; and (3) A description of which allowance is justified by the current LBLOCA and SBLOCA analyses, and its relationship with the proposed deletion of Condition D.
- 3.
Please provide a description and the results of the evaluation completed against the conditions and limitations stated in the staffs SER on the ASTRUM methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A with respect to the CNP-2 plant-specific adaptation of the ASTRUM methodology. Also, identify any deviations and their safety impact on the plant operations.
- 4.
Please describe the reason why the higher peak centerline temperatures (PCT) shown in Figure 1 fall in the range of CD
- Abreak/ACL between 1 and 2.5.
- 5.
Please describe the physical meaning and cause with respect to a negative vapor flow rate as shown in Figures 7 and 8 between 20 and 40 seconds after break.
