ML15033A174

NRR E-mail Capture - Questions for Public Meeting on the Ch 15 re-analysis

ML15033A174
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	01/23/2015
From:	Michael Orenak Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Milster H Entergy Nuclear Operations
References
MF5604
Download: ML15033A174 (2)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Orenak, Michael Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:36 PM To: Milster, Leia Elizabeth (lmilste@entergy.com)

Subject:

Questions for public meeting on the Ch 15 re-analysis

Leia, Below are the questions (in no particular order) that we will be desiring answers for in the public meeting on the Ch. 15 re-analysis due to slow rod-drop times. These are just the questions Ive collected so far, so there could be more coming and Ill let you know asap if/when they do (but I dont expect many more). As for answering the questions, we just desire an honest reply, even if it is we dont know.

1. Did the analysis method change from the current FSAR?

2. Did the DNBR correlation calculation change?

3. What is the worst DNBR limiting case and how significant is it?

4. Will the worst DNBR limiting case result in fuel failure?

5. If the fuel fails in the DNBR limiting case, will a dose analysis be redone?

6. Is Waterford sure that the 0.2 second delay is a result of the S/G replacement? If not, what could the other causes be (e.g., guide tube bending/friction)?

7. When was this issue discovered?

8. Has this issue been trending in the past?

9. How have the current drop times deviated from the drop times in topical reports used by Waterford? If so, are the topical reports still applicable?

10. What are the non-LOCA transients discussed in the FSAR Chapter 15 analysis that need to be reanalyzed?

11. Are there any analysis or test results that support that the increased control rod drop time will not be greater than 0.2 seconds?

12. What are the TS changes involved to support the rod drop time increase?

13. Are there any changes to COLSS and CPCS database or addressable constants (e.g., increase in ROPM) as a result of increased drop times?

14. Are there any planned, augmented rod insertion surveillance testing going forward to confirm new analysis scram times?

If you need clarification on these questions, please let me know so I can gather the reviewer. Whenever you have an idea when the public meeting can be held, please let me know ASAP and Ill get the process moving.

Mike 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1847 Mail Envelope Properties (Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov20150123143600)

Subject:

Questions for public meeting on the Ch 15 re-analysis Sent Date: 1/23/2015 2:36:25 PM Received Date: 1/23/2015 2:36:00 PM From: Orenak, Michael Created By: Michael.Orenak@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Milster, Leia Elizabeth (lmilste@entergy.com)" <lmilste@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2046 1/23/2015 2:36:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: