ML16132A186

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRR E-mail Capture - South Texas Project Unit 1, Draft Request for Supplemental LAR Information for Permanent Operation with 56 Control Rods
ML16132A186
Person / Time
Site: South Texas STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 05/10/2016
From: Lisa Regner
Plant Licensing Branch IV
To: Sterling L
South Texas
References
MF7577
Download: ML16132A186 (3)


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Regner, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:26 AM To: Sterling, Lance Cc: Regner, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Control Rod D6 LAR

Lance, Thanks. Let me know what your availability is the afternoons of 5/10 (today) through 5/12 (Thursday) for a call on the CR D-6 LAR. See below discussion topics. Im not sure yet from our end who will be on the call, so the timeframes may be more restrictive once I get our management coordinated.
Thanks, Lisa
  • An explanation of how the value for a bounding key safety parameter was initially derived/determined for input into the safety analyses. For example, the bounding shutdown margin originally input into the safety analyses was 1.3%. Explain how the value of 1.3 was initially determined. The key safety parameters include the following:

o MTC/Moderator Density Coefficient (MDC) o Shutdown Margin o Trip Reactivity o Uncontrolled boron dilution accident o Dropped bank during full power operations o Steam line break accident o Control rod ejection accident o Steam generator tube rupture Confirm that if these key safety parameters are impacted by the removal of the control rod that the new value for the key safety parameter would be rerun through the analysis to determine the new result.

  • Provide summaries of the evaluations performed from the supporting calculations/documentation for each of these UFSAR Chapter 15 events analyzed and provide the reference number for those.
  • Provide an explicit discussion for each safety analysis methodology regarding the assumptions made when developing the methodology for symmetric vs asymmetric control rod patterns (i.e., that would result from operation with one control rod removed). If no assumptions were made or if it was assumed that the control rod pattern was symmetric, a discussion of why that methodology is still applicable given the proposed new plant configuration.
  • Provide a discussion of any evaluations that have been performed under 50.59, if applicable, as a result of a removal of a control rod that may impact or may have impacted the analyses discussed above.

Lisa Regner Sr. PM NRR/DORL/LPL4-1 301-415-1906 1

O8D08 From: Sterling, Lance [1]

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:18 AM To: Regner, Lisa

Subject:

[External_Sender] Control Rod D6 LAR

Lisa, I talked to Drew and understand that you are going to asset up a phone call to discuss the LAR.

What can I do to help?

Lance 2

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2835 Mail Envelope Properties (9a6f94c85752435cb5f8ef9d1c6b4a7f)

Subject:

RE: Control Rod D6 LAR Sent Date: 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM Received Date: 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM From: Regner, Lisa Created By: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Regner, Lisa" <Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Sterling, Lance" <lsterling@STPEGS.COM>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2375 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Regner, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:26 AM To: Sterling, Lance Cc: Regner, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Control Rod D6 LAR

Lance, Thanks. Let me know what your availability is the afternoons of 5/10 (today) through 5/12 (Thursday) for a call on the CR D-6 LAR. See below discussion topics. Im not sure yet from our end who will be on the call, so the timeframes may be more restrictive once I get our management coordinated.
Thanks, Lisa
  • An explanation of how the value for a bounding key safety parameter was initially derived/determined for input into the safety analyses. For example, the bounding shutdown margin originally input into the safety analyses was 1.3%. Explain how the value of 1.3 was initially determined. The key safety parameters include the following:

o MTC/Moderator Density Coefficient (MDC) o Shutdown Margin o Trip Reactivity o Uncontrolled boron dilution accident o Dropped bank during full power operations o Steam line break accident o Control rod ejection accident o Steam generator tube rupture Confirm that if these key safety parameters are impacted by the removal of the control rod that the new value for the key safety parameter would be rerun through the analysis to determine the new result.

  • Provide summaries of the evaluations performed from the supporting calculations/documentation for each of these UFSAR Chapter 15 events analyzed and provide the reference number for those.
  • Provide an explicit discussion for each safety analysis methodology regarding the assumptions made when developing the methodology for symmetric vs asymmetric control rod patterns (i.e., that would result from operation with one control rod removed). If no assumptions were made or if it was assumed that the control rod pattern was symmetric, a discussion of why that methodology is still applicable given the proposed new plant configuration.
  • Provide a discussion of any evaluations that have been performed under 50.59, if applicable, as a result of a removal of a control rod that may impact or may have impacted the analyses discussed above.

Lisa Regner Sr. PM NRR/DORL/LPL4-1 301-415-1906 1

O8D08 From: Sterling, Lance [2]

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:18 AM To: Regner, Lisa

Subject:

[External_Sender] Control Rod D6 LAR

Lisa, I talked to Drew and understand that you are going to asset up a phone call to discuss the LAR.

What can I do to help?

Lance 2

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2835 Mail Envelope Properties (9a6f94c85752435cb5f8ef9d1c6b4a7f)

Subject:

RE: Control Rod D6 LAR Sent Date: 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM Received Date: 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM From: Regner, Lisa Created By: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Regner, Lisa" <Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Sterling, Lance" <lsterling@STPEGS.COM>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2375 5/10/2016 8:25:42 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: