ML12109A267
| ML12109A267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/2012 |
| From: | Feintuch K Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | Sly C, Gadzala J Dominion Energy Kewaunee |
| References | |
| TAC ME8205 | |
| Download: ML12109A267 (4) | |
Text
1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:
Feintuch, Karl Sent:
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:09 AM To:
'Craig D Sly'; 'Jack Gadzala' Cc:
Dana Knee; Parks, Benjamin
Subject:
RE: ME8205 - KEWAUNEE POWER STATION - 10 CFR 50.46, 30-DAY RESPONSE -
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - DRAFT ITEMS I have asked for confirmation of the draft items and expect to issue a replacement in its entirety reply to your message below.
Currently, I know to replace 5a and 5b and have asked for confirmation of others.
Meanwhile, do not transmit any responses until we have established a confirmed set of draft RAIs.
Karl Feintuch From: Craig D Sly [1]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:30 PM To: Feintuch, Karl Cc: Dana Knee
Subject:
FW: ME8205 - KEWAUNEE POWER STATION - 10 CFR 50.46, 30-DAY RESPONSE - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - DRAFT ITEMS Karl, Attached below are questions we received from you regarding the thermal conductivity degradation issues on March 23. These questions were draft questions. After these questions were sent, NRC conducted a weeklong audit at Westinghouse offices. During that audit, the NRC staff apparently indicated that some of the questions were addressed (i.e. deleted), some changed, and some new ones may have been added. Westinghouse personnel apparently asked for written versions of the changed questions and were not allowed to have anything in writing (this is a standard practice for NRC inspections). We have called WH to inquire if they had official updated versions of these RAIs and they indicated that they do not. They were apparently told that the NRC staff would be working with individual licensees to finalize the questions for each plant.
So here is my problem. As of today I dont seem to have an official set of questions for Kewaunee. I am aware that the question set below has been modified in some manner, and my technical experts have second-hand information pertaining to what we think the modified questions might look like.
However, at this point we dont have a set of mutually agreed to questions or a mutually agreed to date to answer the questions. As you can imagine, I am very hesitant to proceed with answering questions that Im not sure are mutually agreed to by the NRC staff and us. I dont want to answer the wrong question or risk writing purchase orders for WH to do work that might turn out to be un-necessary.
Therefore, I would like to have the NRC staff re-issue the set of questions below as a final draft and then we can proceed as with a typical set of RAIs (i.e. hold a clarification call as needed and agree to an appropriate due date).
Hopes this all makes sense.
2 Thanks, Craig Sly Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support W: 804-273-2784 C: 804-241-2473 From: Feintuch, Karl [2]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 3:50 PM To: Gary D Miller (Generation - 6)
Cc: Parks, Benjamin; Paige, Jason
Subject:
ME8205 - KEWAUNEE POWER STATION - 10 CFR 50.46, 30-DAY RESPONSE - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - DRAFT ITEMS By letter dated March 15, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12079A287), the licensee, Kewaunee Power Station, submitted a Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.54(f) response to the NRCs information request related to the estimated effect on peak cladding temperature resulting from thermal conductivity degradation in the Westinghouse furnished realistic emergency core cooling evaluation. The licensee also stated that this response served as a 30-day report in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
In the course of the Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB) 10 CFR 50.46 response review, the NRC staff has determined that additional information is necessary to complete its review. Prompt transmittal of the requested information is requested by the staff.
The staffs request for additional information follows. Please contact Karl Feintuch (301-415-3079) to discuss the schedule for response or any need for clarification.
KEWAUNEE POWER STATION 10 CFR 50.46, 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DRAFT ITEMS
- 1. Please explain how the 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3) error report enclosed in your response to the NRCs Information Request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) remains adherent to the WCAP-14449-P-A methodology, which includes a supplement describing the method for fulfilling 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3) re-analysis requirements.
- 2. Justify the evaluation of reduced peaking factors at beginning-of-life conditions to obtain analytic margin to offset the TCD effect. Show that peaking factor reductions affect PCT in a manner that is substantially independent of fuel burnup.
- 3. Fully explain all peaking factor adjustments and provide the rationale for each adjustment.
3
- 4. Compare the results of the TCD and offset sensitivity studies to the fuel rod parameter sensitivity studies discussed in the Code Qualification Document. Please explain any significant discrepancies in the results.
- 5. Your submittal referenced a March 7, 2012 letter sent by Westinghouse Electric Company to the NRC.
- a. In the final paragraph on page 2 of 9, the document states, Small differences between the void volumes may exist for rods with the same cladding diameter, however, these differences in void volumes have been compared, and the components of the void volume calculations are either conservative or the changes in void volume are negligible after considering other conservatisms. Core operating conditions and powers were also confirmed to either be bounding, the same, or offset by other margins. The representative fuel temperatures and rod internal pressures are either similar or bound those expected for plant specific calculations.
Provide the results of this comparison for Kewaunee, including the relevant conclusions and the technical basis supporting those conclusions. For any conclusion that differences in void volume are offset by other conservatisms, list those conservatisms and provide a quantitative estimate of each conservatism, as well as a brief description of the rigor associated with that estimate.
- b. Please provide the values for the coefficients A1 and A2 used in the PAD 4.0 + TCD UO2 thermal conductivity equation.
- c. Please explain any error corrections, code improvements, and miscellaneous code cleanup between the WCOBRA/TRAC and HOTSPOT code versions used in the TCD evaluations and those used in the plants AOR.
- d. What is the thermal conductivity model impact of code version changes in HOTSPOT?
- 6. Explain the differences between the TRANSURANUS and PAD computer codes and the impact of those differences. Provide graphs or other quantified descriptions that aid in explanation.
- 7. Please explain how the changed design values will be verified during operation of the plant, i.e. TS limits, Surveillances, etc. Also, explain what compensatory actions will be taken if a value is found to be outside of the limits assumed in the analysis.
- 8. Page 3 of Attachment 2 to Serial 12-100 states that Dominion and its vendor, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, utilize processes which ensure that LOCA analysis input values conservatively bound the as-operated plant values for those parameters. Please explain these processes.
= End preceding emails=
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
Hearing Identifier:
NRR_PMDA Email Number:
340 Mail Envelope Properties (26E42474DB238C408C94990815A02F0968BB8EC36D)
Subject:
RE: ME8205 - KEWAUNEE POWER STATION - 10 CFR 50.46, 30-DAY RESPONSE - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - DRAFT ITEMS Sent Date:
4/17/2012 10:08:45 AM Received Date:
4/17/2012 10:08:00 AM From:
Feintuch, Karl Created By:
Karl.Feintuch@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Dana Knee" <dana.knee@dom.com>
Tracking Status: None "Parks, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Parks@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None
"'Craig D Sly'" <craig.d.sly@dom.com>
Tracking Status: None
"'Jack Gadzala'" <jack.gadzala@dom.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 8115 4/17/2012 10:08:00 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: