ML15033A174
| 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
1 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
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: