ML100700301

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary Follow-Up Conference Call with Entergy Operations, Inc. to Discuss Draft Response for Waterford, Unit 3, to the Request for Additional Information for Generic Letter 2004-02
ML100700301
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/07/2010
From: Kalyanam N
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:
Entergy Operations
Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-1480
References
GL-04-002, TAC MC4729
Download: ML100700301 (6)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 7, 2010 LICENSEE: ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

FACILITY: WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MARCH 8, 2010, FOLLOW-UP CONFERENCE CALL WITH ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. ON DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR GENERIC LETTER 2004-02, "POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DEBRIS BLOCKAGE ON EMERGENCY RECIRCULATION DURING DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS AT PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS" (TAC NO. MC4729)

On March 8, 2010, a Category 1 Public Meeting via conference call was held between the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Entergy Operations, Inc.

(Entergy, the licensee). This was a follow-up call to the conference call on October 15, 2009, to discuss the open items for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), from the request for additional information (RAI) on NRC Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02, "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized Water Reactors." The licensee submitted a document entitled, "Waterford 3 Generic Letter 2004-02 Response to RAls, March 8, 2010" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML100690372), which contained the RAls and draft responses.

The March 8, 2010, Category 1 Public Meeting via conference call was noticed through Meeting Notice, ADAMS Accession No. ML100540083.

It was also decided that Entergy will give the complete response (to all 44 questions) and provide a detailed schedule for the response by March 15, 2010. The licensee committed to providing the complete response by April 15, 2010.

Members of the public were not in attendance. A list of participants is enclosed in Enclosure 1. covers the status of the responses to the 44 questions in the licensee presentation.

-2 Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-1480 or kaly.kalyanam@nrc.gov.

N. Kaly Kalyanam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants
2. Status of Responses cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MARCH 8, 2010, PUBLIC MEETING VIA CONFERENCE CALL WITH ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 Entergy Operations. Inc.

Robert Murillo Brian Lanka Greg Ferguson Nick Petit Mike Mason Megan Stachowiak Jim Furman Gil Zigler Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael Scott, NRRlDSS/SSIB Steven Smith, NRRlDSS/SSIB Roberto Torres, NRRlDSS/SSIB Paul Klein, NRRlDCI/CSGB Matt Yoder, NRRlDCI/CSGB Emma Wong, NRRlDCI/CSGB N. Kalyanam, NRRlDORLlLPL4 Enclosure 1

STATUS OF RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 RAI Question No. (*) Comment 1 thru 10 Licensee stated it will use 17D for Nukon. This response is acceptable to the NRC staff.

11 (**) Staff suggested that the licensee reach a decision for the path forward and include it in the RAI response.

12 and 13 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

14 The NRC staff does not need to review the CFD plots, since licensee does not plan to credit debris settling.

15 thru 17 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

18(**) The licensee to re-evaluate whether settling will be credited for downstream effects.

19 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

20 While the draft response appears acceptable and it is not necessary to credit the holdup (Le., assume a 100 percent transport), the licensee response should clearly state that methodology used to determine this percentage of debris lifting over the plenum applies to one break (Break S7).

21 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

(*) For the description of the Request for Additional Information (RAI) questions, please refer to the presentation entitled, "Waterford 3 Generic Letter 2004-02 Response to RAls, March 8,2010" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML100690372).

(**) Represents the items considered unresolved. These items will likely be the focus for a future discussion, unless the RAI responses contain details not discussed or unexpected information.

Enclosure 2

-2 RAI Question No. (*) Comment 22(**) The licensee is finalizing the assumptions and will commit to procedural items similar to the Dominion Energy, Millstone response to deal with low pressure safety injection pump to stop. The licensee will also include this scenario in the testing. The NRC staff also stated that it would like to see a draft response on this item, since the licensee's decision will affect the transport evaluation.

23 The licensee can provide a high-level description of the test facility and state if it is similar to that observed by the staff.

24 and 25 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

26 The licensee should state that it is using the same procedure used at other plants and found acceptable by the NRC staff.

27 thru 34 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

35 The response appears acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response.

36(**) Licensee stated that there is no net holdup in the refueling canal, since the 6 inch straight pipe drains with the other obstacles in the region prevent clogging of the drains. While the NRC staff considered the response as probably acceptable, the formal RAI response should provide a clear and cogent argument.

37 The responses provided in the previous discussions on October 15, 2009, appear acceptable to the NRC staff, subject to review of the draft RAI response. Regarding the inorganic zinc, the licensee stated that the 102 in the zone of influence is top-coated.

38 This item (in-vessel downstream effects) is to be resolved generically.

39 thru 44 Licensee stated it will retest with WCAP precipitate Base model. Any contingent refinement will be discussed in detail in the RAI response. The licensee should include the equilibrium pH range and aluminum concentration. NRC staff will provide a sample of a successful licensee submittal.

(*) For the description of the Request for Additional Information (RAI) questions, please refer to the presentation entitled, "Waterford 3 Generic Letter 2004-02 Response to RAls, March 8, 2010" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML100690372).

(**) Represents the items considered unresolved. These items will likely be the focus for a future discussion, unless the RAI responses contain details not discussed or unexpected information.

Meetina Notice . S ummarv ML100700301, Licensee Slides ML100690372 OFFICE DORULPL4/PM DORULPL4/LA NRRlDSS/SSIB DORULPL4/BC DORULPL4/PM NAME NKalyanam JBurkhardt MScott MMarkley BSingal for NKalyanam DATE 3/31/10 3/15/10 3/15/10 4/6110 4/7/10