|
|
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:From: Mirzai, Mahvash To: Guzman, Richard | | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Mirzai, Mahvash To: Guzman, Richard |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| [External_Sender] RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:01:45 PM | | [External_Sender] RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:01:45 PM |
| : Rich, Please find below the response to the clarification items that were discussed during our teleconference at 2:00 pm on October 19, 2017: | | : Rich, Please find below the response to the clarification items that were discussed during our teleconference at 2:00 pm on October 19, 2017: |
| RAI-4 Follow-up Question The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly. The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60).For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 years cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower bur n up of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RA I-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies). | | RAI-4 Follow-up Question The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly. The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60). |
| | For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 years cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower burnup of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RAI-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies). |
| Response to RAI-4 Follow-up Question We agree that the source terms for the maximum BPRA burnup allowed in the inner region of loading pattern 11 may be slightly higher than what was used in the analyses. Here is our perspective: | | Response to RAI-4 Follow-up Question We agree that the source terms for the maximum BPRA burnup allowed in the inner region of loading pattern 11 may be slightly higher than what was used in the analyses. Here is our perspective: |
| * For clarification, the value for the design basis of 848.4 Curies is only for the active region, the total design basis BPRA Cobalt-60 activity is 895 Ci (Total amount from Table 7.2.5).* We agree with the value of 1101 Ci for 60 GWd/mtU and 6 years, which can be derived from Table 7.2.9.* For 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years, as a check, we had initially just scaled the value of 1101 Ci by the burnup, resulting in 1101/60*45 | | * For clarification, the value for the design basis of 848.4 Curies is only for the active region, the total design basis BPRA Cobalt-60 activity is 895 Ci (Total amount from Table 7.2.5). |
| = 826 Ci, which would have been below the value used in the analysis of 895 Ci.* However, we now realize that due to the lower assumed enrichment for the 45 GWd/mtU fuel of 3.2 wt%, and the fact that BPRA curies does not scale in exact proportion to burnup, the cobalt content would be larger. A more detailed upper bound calculation indicates a BPRA with a burnup of 45 GWd/mtU, cooling time of 6 years, and paired with an assembly in the reactor core with an enrichment of 3.2 wt% having a Cobalt-60 activity of approximately 980 Ci, i.e. a value about 10%higher than the design basis value used.* When considering this increase in the analyses for loading pattern 11, where the four inner spent fuel assemblies assume a source of 980 Ci rather than 895 Ci, dose rates increase on average by about 1.0%. The maximum dose rate increase is less than 4%. No conclusions are affected by this increase.
| | * We agree with the value of 1101 Ci for 60 GWd/mtU and 6 years, which can be derived from Table 7.2.9. |
| * Discussed Action o A qualitative discussion will be added to Chapter 7, in Sections 7.0.1 and 7.4.3.2, to explain that for the inner region of pattern 11, the BPRA activity for 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years may be slightly higher than that of the design b asis value used, but that this has no significant effect on dose rates, and does not affect any conclusions. | | * For 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years, as a check, we had initially just scaled the value of 1101 Ci by the burnup, resulting in 1101/60*45 = 826 Ci, which would have been below the value used in the analysis of 895 Ci. |
| o An Appendix will be added to the Shielding Calculation package HI-2084109 to document alternative BPRA activity and dose rate calculations related to loading pattern 11. RAI-8 Follow-up Question Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances. | | * However, we now realize that due to the lower assumed enrichment for the 45 GWd/mtU fuel of 3.2 wt%, and the fact that BPRA curies does not scale in exact proportion to burnup, the cobalt content would be larger. A more detailed upper bound calculation indicates a BPRA with a burnup of 45 GWd/mtU, cooling time of 6 years, and paired with an assembly in the reactor core with an enrichment of 3.2 wt% having a Cobalt-60 activity of approximately 980 Ci, i.e. a value about 10% |
| The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.1 0, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC. The staff would like to get clarification on this item. Response to RAI-8 Follow-up Question The doses shown in Table 7.4.22 are dominated by the dose rates from the bare STC, and by dose rates on top of the STC or HI-TRAC. Only the activities characterized as "Measure the dose rate and prepare for transfer operation to the VCT" and "Movement of HI-TRAC to Unit 2 FSB" would be affected, and these activities contribute less than 0.5% to the primary dose and less than 1.5% to the secondary dose. The small increase in the HI-TRAC dose rates (changes shown on Table 7.4.1 0) would hence have a negligible effect. Discussed Action:* A brief discussion will be added to Chapter 7, Section 7.4.12, on this issue, but Table 7.4.22 will remain unchanged. | | higher than the design basis value used. |
| RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Question The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass)completed neglected from the calculation models? Response to RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Questio n The RCCAs are completely neglected in the calculations and the calculational models for the comparisons against the measured dose rates, i.e. neither the materials nor the source terms are credited. With respect to the materials, this is consistent with the design basis calculations, where the materials of the RCCAs are also not credited. No further action needed for this issue, i.e. no further changes to the Shielding Calculation package or Licensing Report. | | * When considering this increase in the analyses for loading pattern 11, where the four inner spent fuel assemblies assume a source of 980 Ci rather than 895 Ci, dose rates increase on average by about 1.0%. The maximum dose rate increase is less than 4%. No conclusions are affected by this increase. |
| | * Discussed Action o A qualitative discussion will be added to Chapter 7, in Sections 7.0.1 and 7.4.3.2, to explain that for the inner region of pattern 11, the BPRA activity for 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years may be slightly higher than that of the design basis value used, but that this has no significant effect on dose rates, and does not affect any conclusions. |
| | |
| | o An Appendix will be added to the Shielding Calculation package HI-2084109 to document alternative BPRA activity and dose rate calculations related to loading pattern 11. |
| | RAI-8 Follow-up Question Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances. The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.10, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC. The staff would like to get clarification on this item. |
| | Response to RAI-8 Follow-up Question The doses shown in Table 7.4.22 are dominated by the dose rates from the bare STC, and by dose rates on top of the STC or HI-TRAC. Only the activities characterized as "Measure the dose rate and prepare for transfer operation to the VCT" and "Movement of HI-TRAC to Unit 2 FSB" would be affected, and these activities contribute less than 0.5% to the primary dose and less than 1.5% to the secondary dose. The small increase in the HI-TRAC dose rates (changes shown on Table 7.4.10) would hence have a negligible effect. |
| | Discussed Action: |
| | * A brief discussion will be added to Chapter 7, Section 7.4.12, on this issue, but Table 7.4.22 will remain unchanged. |
| | RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Question The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass) completed neglected from the calculation models? |
| | Response to RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Question The RCCAs are completely neglected in the calculations and the calculational models for the comparisons against the measured dose rates, i.e. neither the materials nor the source terms are credited. With respect to the materials, this is consistent with the design basis calculations, where the materials of the RCCAs are also not credited. |
| | No further action needed for this issue, i.e. no further changes to the Shielding Calculation package or Licensing Report. |
| Please let me know if you have any further questions. | | Please let me know if you have any further questions. |
| : Thanks, | | : Thanks, Mahvash Mirzai Nuclear Safety/License Specialist IV |
|
| |
|
| Mahvash Mirzai
| | Indian Point Entergy Center 914-254-7714 (Work) 203-705-9676 (Cell) mmirzai@entergy.com From: Guzman, Richard [mailto:Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov] |
| | | Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:43 PM To: Mirzai, Mahvash |
| Nuclear Safety/License Specialist IV Indian Point Entergy Center 914-254-7714 (Work) 203-705-9676 (Cell) mmirzai@entergy.com From: Guzman, Richard [
| |
| mailto:Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov | |
| ] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:43 PM To: Mirzai, Mahvash
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| RE: RE: RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI | | RE: RE: RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response From: Guzman, Richard [mailto:Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov] |
| | | Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:32 AM To: Mirzai, Mahvash Cc: Walpole, Robert W |
| response From: Guzman, Richard [ | |
| mailto:Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov | |
| ] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:32 AM To: Mirzai, Mahvash Cc: Walpole, Robert W
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response EXTERNAL SENDER. DO NOT click links, or open attachments, if sender is unknown, or the message seems suspicious in any way. | | Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response EXTERNAL SENDER. DO NOT click links, or open attachments, if sender is unknown, or the message seems suspicious in any way. |
|
| |
| DO NOT provide your user ID or password. | | DO NOT provide your user ID or password. |
| Mahvash, Good morning. I just left you a voice message. Below are clarification items the staff would like to discuss via teleconference. | | : Mahvash, Good morning. I just left you a voice message. Below are clarification items the staff would like to discuss via teleconference. Please let me know if you can support a call this Thursday (preferable) or Friday. At this time, we are available 9:30-10:30a, 11-12p, or 2-2:30p on Thursday. If not, please provide some alternate proposed times and I will check availability w/the technical reviewer. |
| Please let me know if you can support a call this Thursday (preferable) or Friday. At this time, we are available 9:30-10:30a, 11-12p, or 2-2:30p on Thursday. | |
| If not, please provide some alternate proposed times and I will check availability w/the technical reviewer. | |
| | |
| RAI-4 The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly.
| |
| The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60). For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 yrs cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower burnup of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RAI-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies).
| |
| | |
| RAI-8 Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances.
| |
| The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.10, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC. The staff would like to get clarification on this item.
| |
| RAI-10, RAI-11 The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass) completed neglected from the calculation models?
| |
|
| |
|
| ~~~~~~~~~Rich Guzman Sr. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
| | ===RAI-4=== |
| | The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly. The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60). For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 yrs cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower burnup of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RAI-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies). |
|
| |
|
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
| | ===RAI-8=== |
| | Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances. The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.10, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for |
|
| |
|
| Office: O-9C7 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov}} | | operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC. |
| | The staff would like to get clarification on this item. |
| | RAI-10, RAI-11 The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass) completed neglected from the calculation models? |
| | ~~~~~~~~~ |
| | Rich Guzman Sr. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: O-9C7 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov}} |
Letter Sequence Meeting |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARNL-16-118, Proposed License Amendment Regarding the Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel2016-12-14014 December 2016
Proposed License Amendment Regarding the Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: Other
ML17100A1282017-04-11011 April 2017
Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment of Inter Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: Acceptance Review
NL-17-044, Response to Request for Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel2017-04-19019 April 2017
Response to Request for Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: Request
ML17115A0482017-04-26026 April 2017
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: Acceptance Review
ML17197A0002017-07-17017 July 2017
Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: RAI
ML17219A1062017-08-10010 August 2017
Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel - Shielded Transfer Canister Requests for Additional Information
Project stage: RAI
NL-17-102, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel2017-08-16016 August 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML17261B1902017-09-18018 September 2017
Request for RAI Response Due Date Extension License Amendment Request for Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel (CAC Nos. MF8991 and MF8992)
Project stage: RAI
ML17267A0002017-09-22022 September 2017
E-mail from R.Guzman to R.Walpole Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 - Request for RAI Response Due Date Extension License Amendment Request for Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
Project stage: RAI
NL-17-115, Response to Request for Additional Information Re Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel, Attachments 1, 2, 3 (non-proprietary Version of Report HI-2094289, Rev. 9) and 7 Enclosed2017-10-0202 October 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Re Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel, Attachments 1, 2, 3 (non-proprietary Version of Report HI-2094289, Rev. 9) and 7 Enclosed
Project stage: Response to RAI
ML17289A6552017-10-0202 October 2017
Attachment 6 to NL-17-115, Revised HI-2094289, Licensing Report on the Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel at the Energy Center, Revision 9
Project stage: Other
ML17298B6472017-10-25025 October 2017
10/25/17 E-mail from M. Mirzai to R. Guzman Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel LAR - Clarification Response Following Teleconference on October 19, 2017
Project stage: Meeting
ML17300A1742017-10-27027 October 2017
10/27/17 E-mail from M. Mirzai to R. Guzman Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel LAR - Updated Clarification Response Following Teleconference on October 19, 2017
Project stage: Meeting
ML17316A0022017-11-27027 November 2017
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure (CAC Nos. MF8991 and MF8992; EPID: L-2016-LLA-0039)
Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance
ML17316A0012017-11-27027 November 2017
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure (CAC Nos. MF8991 and MF8992; EPID: L-2016-LLA-0039)
Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance
ML17316A0002017-11-27027 November 2017
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure (CAC Nos. MF8991 and MF8992; EPID: L-2016-LLA-0039)
Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance
ML17320A3542017-12-22022 December 2017
Issuance of Amendments Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel (CAC Nos. MF8991 and MF8992; EPID L-2016-LLA-0039)
Project stage: Approval
2017-04-11
[Table View] |
|
|---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24036A0162024-02-0101 February 2024
NRC Email - Acknowledge and Accept the Indian Point Energy Center Request to Be Removed from NRC Headquarters Operation Officer (Hoo) Morning Authentication Code Calls
ML23341A2002023-12-0707 December 2023
Email - Indian Point Energy Center Generating Units 1, 2, and 3 – Implementation Notice of Amendment No. 67, 300 and 276 to Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Emergency Plan (Ioep)
ML23332A0802023-11-0808 November 2023
– Email from State of New York on the Revised License Amendment for Indian Point Energy Center ISFSI Only Emergency Plan
ML23331A9542023-11-0808 November 2023
Email - State of New York Comments on the Revised License Amendment for Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 Technical Specification Changes Reflecting Permanent Removal of Spent Fuel
ML23325A1632023-11-0808 November 2023
– State of New York Comments on the Revised License Amendment for Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 Technical Specification Changes Reflecting Permanent Removal of Spent Fuel
ML23144A3382023-05-25025 May 2023
Dawn Giambalvo of Jersey City, New Jersey Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23144A3422023-05-25025 May 2023
Peter Duda of Pearl River, New York Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23144A3452023-05-25025 May 2023
Adam Kahn of Monsey, New York Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23144A3502023-05-25025 May 2023
Dan Kwilecki of Montebello, New York Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23144A3392023-05-25025 May 2023
David Morris of New City, New York Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23144A3442023-05-25025 May 2023
Peggy Kurtz of Rockland County, New York Email Against Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23136B1622023-05-15015 May 2023
– Town of North Salem, County of Westchester, New York Board Resolution Letter Regarding Treated Water Release from Indian Point Site
ML23109A0632023-04-17017 April 2023
Email Acceptance Review for IP2 and IP3 Amended Facility License and Technical Specification to Reflect Permanent Removal of Spent Fuel from Spent Fuel Pits
ML23055A1112023-02-23023 February 2023
Alyse Peterson Email- NYSERDA No Comments on Indian Point Unit 2 - Regarding Holtec License Amendment Request to Revise Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications and Staffing Requirements with Spent Fuel Transfer to ISFSI (Dockets 50-24
ML23049A0032023-02-14014 February 2023
– NRC Acceptance Email to Holtec for License Amendment Request for Approval of New ISFSI-Only Emergency Plan and Associated EAL Scheme
ML22313A1682022-11-0909 November 2022
NRC Response to Updates to the Proposed Amended IP2 Master Trust
ML22308A0912022-11-0303 November 2022
Email Acknowledgement for IP2 and IP3 Amended Facility License and Technical Specification to Reflect Permanent Removal of Spent Fuel from Spent Fuel Pits
ML22276A1642022-09-29029 September 2022
New York State Revised Draft EA Response E-Mail
ML22271A8492022-09-28028 September 2022
E-Mail Transmitting Revised Indian Point Exemption Draft EA
ML22269A3452022-09-22022 September 2022
Email Objection to Holtec IP2 Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Facility Unit 1 and 2, EPID L-2022-LLA-0072
ML22259A1992022-09-0202 September 2022
Acceptance for License Amendment Request to Modify Staffing Requirements Following SFP Transfer to Dry Storage
ML22265A0142022-08-31031 August 2022
Email Acknowledgement for Amended and Restated Holtec IP3 Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Facility Unit 3
ML22242A2592022-08-19019 August 2022
E-mail from K. Sturzebecher, NRC, to B. Noval, HDI, Acknowledgement for Amended and Restated Holtec IP2 Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Facility Unit 1 and 2
ML22228A1332022-08-0909 August 2022
Acknowledgement for License Amendment Request to Modify Staffing Requirements Following SFP Transfer to Dry Storage
ML22215A0432022-08-0101 August 2022
E-Mail Transmitting NYS NSA Exemption Comments & Draft EA Review Completion
ML22208A0292022-07-19019 July 2022
E-Mail Transmitting Indian Point Exemption Draft EA
ML22168A0072022-06-16016 June 2022
Acceptance Review for License Amendment Request to Revise License Condition to Eliminate Cyber Security Plan Requirements
ML22112A0102022-04-21021 April 2022
Acceptance Review: Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) Concerning Indian Point Energy Center Onsite Property Damage Insurance
ML22112A0122022-04-21021 April 2022
Acceptance Review: Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) Concerning Primary and Secondary Liability Insurance for Indian Point Energy Center
ML22103A2432022-04-13013 April 2022
E-mail - Request for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme for Permanently Defueled Condition for Indian Point Energy Center
ML22104A0342022-04-13013 April 2022
E-mail from Z. Cruz, NRC to J. Fleming, Holtec - Request for Additional Information Related to Request for Exemption from Portions of 10 CFR 50.47 and Part 50 Appendix E for Indian Point Energy Center
ML22038A2572022-02-0707 February 2022
E-mail from Z. Cruz, NRC, to J. Fleming, HDI - Acceptance Review: License Amendment Request to Revise Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme to Address Permanently Defueled Condition for Indian Point Energy Center
ML22035A1862022-02-0404 February 2022
E-mail to J. Fleming, Holtec, from Z. Cruz Perez, NRC - Acceptance Review: Exemption Requests from Portions of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV for Indian Point Energy Center
ML22028A1032022-01-28028 January 2022
E-mail Dated 1/28/2022, Transmittal of Draft Safety Evaluation for Proposed License Amendment Revision to Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of of New Auxiliary Lifting Device
ML22038A1592022-01-24024 January 2022
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) 2021 IPEC Annual Sturgeon Impingement Report
ML22006A0442022-01-0505 January 2022
Email from Z Cruz to J Fleming Request for Additional Information - HDI Indian Point Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21337A2952021-12-0303 December 2021
Subsequent Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Revise Licensing Basis for New Auxiliary Lifting Device (E-mail Dated 12/3/2021)
ML21335A3692021-12-0101 December 2021
Acceptance Review: Indian Point Energy Center - Exemption Request from 10 CFR Part 20 App G Section Iii.E
ML21266A2972021-08-18018 August 2021
8/18/2021 E-mail from H. Specter to R. Guzman Public Comments to NRC, Indian Point Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Public Meeting on July 29, 2021
ML21225A5012021-08-0909 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Shinnecock Indian Nation Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21224A3032021-08-0909 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A6142021-08-0909 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Tuscarora Nation Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A5682021-08-0909 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A4252021-08-0909 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A3142021-08-0606 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Oneida Indian Nation Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A4402021-08-0606 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Onondaga Nation of Wisconsin Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A5352021-08-0606 August 2021
Email from NRC to the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21225A5462021-08-0606 August 2021
Email from NRC to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Announcing the IPEC PSDAR Public Meeting on August 18, 2021
ML21266A2942021-07-25025 July 2021
E-mail from Paul Blanch to NRC (N. Sheehan, D. Screnci) Public Comments to NRC, Indian Point Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Public Meeting, July 29, 2021
ML21197A2002021-07-16016 July 2021
(E-mail 7/16/2021) NRC Staff Assessment and RAI Closeout HDI Fleet Decommissioning Quality Assurance Program and Indian Point Energy Center Quality Assurance Program Manual
2024-02-01
[Table view]
Category:Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
MONTHYEARML23192A1002023-07-11011 July 2023
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise the Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme
ML23103A2732023-04-25025 April 2023
Enclosuresponses to Q&A
ML22308A2572022-11-0404 November 2022
Decommissioning International - Response to Request for Additional Information for the Proposed Amended IP2 Master Trust Agreement
ML22132A1692022-05-12012 May 2022
Response to Requests for Additional Information Related to Exemption Request and License Amendment Request to Revise the Facility'S Emergency Plan
ML22034A6032022-02-0303 February 2022
Response to Request for Additional Information - Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 20, Appendix G, Section Iii.E for Low-level Radioactive Waste Shipments
ML22034A7882022-02-0303 February 2022
Response to Requests for Additional Information - Related to Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML22003A1932022-01-0303 January 2022
Response to Requests for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device
NL-21-039, Response to Request for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary2021-05-20020 May 2021
Response to Request for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary
CNRO-2021-00002, Entergy Operations, Inc. - Basis for Concluding the Terms of Confirmatory Order EA-17-132/EA-17-153 Are Complete, Element L2021-01-28028 January 2021
Entergy Operations, Inc. - Basis for Concluding the Terms of Confirmatory Order EA-17-132/EA-17-153 Are Complete, Element L
NL-21-014, Response to 2nd Round Request for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device2021-01-26026 January 2021
Response to 2nd Round Request for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device
NL-20-078, Response to Requests for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device2020-11-0909 November 2020
Response to Requests for Additional Information - License Amendment Request to Revise the Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device
NL-20-070, Response to Requests for Additional Information, License Amendment Request to Revise the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device2020-10-0202 October 2020
Response to Requests for Additional Information, License Amendment Request to Revise the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Licensing Basis to Incorporate the Installation and Use of a New Auxiliary Lifting Device
ML20220A6662020-08-0707 August 2020
Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAI) Re the Request for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 & 3
NL-20-050, Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Letter Regarding Algonquin Incremental Market Project Pipeline2020-06-24024 June 2020
Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Letter Regarding Algonquin Incremental Market Project Pipeline
ML20122A1222020-05-27027 May 2020
Letter from Margaret M. Doane to Mr. Lemuel Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Office of the Ny Attorney General: Response to Office of Ny Attorney General Regarding Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines Near Indian Point Power
ML20122A1052020-05-27027 May 2020
Letter from Margaret M. Doane to John B. Rhodes, Chair and Executive Officer, Ny State Public Service Commission: Response to Ny State Public Service Commission Regarding Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines Near Indian Point Nuclear Power Pl
NL-20-035, Response to Request for Additional Information - Temporary Exemption Request from 10 CFR Appendix R, Section Iii.H Due to COVID-19 Pandemic2020-04-16016 April 2020
Response to Request for Additional Information - Temporary Exemption Request from 10 CFR Appendix R, Section Iii.H Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
CNRO-2019-00030, Response to Confirmatory Order EA-17-132/EA-17-153, Element K 2019 Summary2019-12-30030 December 2019
Response to Confirmatory Order EA-17-132/EA-17-153, Element K 2019 Summary
NL-19-023, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Proposed License Amendment Request Regarding Storage of Fresh and Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool2019-06-0606 June 2019
Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Proposed License Amendment Request Regarding Storage of Fresh and Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool
NL-18-045, IP3 ILRT RAI Responses2018-07-0303 July 2018
IP3 ILRT RAI Responses
NL-18-045, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 - Response to Request for Additional Information for Acceptance of License Amendment Request (LAR) for One-Time Extension of the Containment Type a Leak Rate Testing Frequency from 15 to 16 Years2018-07-0303 July 2018
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 - Response to Request for Additional Information for Acceptance of License Amendment Request (LAR) for One-Time Extension of the Containment Type a Leak Rate Testing Frequency from 15 to 16 Years
ML18193A4512018-07-0303 July 2018
Response to Request for Additional Information for Acceptance of License Amendment Request (LAR) for One-Time Extension of the Containment Type a Leak Rate Testing Frequency from 15 to 16 Years
CNRO-2018-00021, Response to Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-01, Monitoring of Neutron Absorbing Materials in the Spent Fuel Pools for Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 3 and Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station2018-05-30030 May 2018
Response to Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-01, Monitoring of Neutron Absorbing Materials in the Spent Fuel Pools for Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 3 and Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station
NL-17-161, Supplemental Information Regarding the Service Water Integrity Aging Management Program for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (LRA) (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)2017-12-21021 December 2017
Supplemental Information Regarding the Service Water Integrity Aging Management Program for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (LRA) (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)
NL-17-127, Supplemental Information Regarding the Service Water Integrity Aging Management Program for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (LRA) (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)2017-11-0808 November 2017
Supplemental Information Regarding the Service Water Integrity Aging Management Program for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (LRA) (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)
NL-17-142, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request IP2-ISI-RR-20 for Relief from Examinations of Code Class 1 Component Welds with Less than Essentially 100% Coverage for Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection..2017-11-0101 November 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request IP2-ISI-RR-20 for Relief from Examinations of Code Class 1 Component Welds with Less than Essentially 100% Coverage for Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection..
ML17300A1742017-10-27027 October 2017
10/27/17 E-mail from M. Mirzai to R. Guzman Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel LAR - Updated Clarification Response Following Teleconference on October 19, 2017
ML17298B6472017-10-25025 October 2017
10/25/17 E-mail from M. Mirzai to R. Guzman Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel LAR - Clarification Response Following Teleconference on October 19, 2017
NL-17-115, Response to Request for Additional Information Re Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel, Attachments 1, 2, 3 (non-proprietary Version of Report HI-2094289, Rev. 9) and 7 Enclosed2017-10-0202 October 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Re Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel, Attachments 1, 2, 3 (non-proprietary Version of Report HI-2094289, Rev. 9) and 7 Enclosed
NL-17-109, Request for Additional Information for Proposed License Amendment Regarding the Connection of Non-Seismic Boric Acid Recovery System to the Refueling Water Storage Tank Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit2017-08-17017 August 2017
Request for Additional Information for Proposed License Amendment Regarding the Connection of Non-Seismic Boric Acid Recovery System to the Refueling Water Storage Tank Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit
NL-17-102, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel2017-08-16016 August 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
NL-17-092, Amended Response to Request for Additional Information Question RAI 3.3.2-17-IP3-1 Re License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-052017-07-27027 July 2017
Amended Response to Request for Additional Information Question RAI 3.3.2-17-IP3-1 Re License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-05
NL-17-084, Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application. Re RAI Set 2017-062017-07-27027 July 2017
Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application. Re RAI Set 2017-06
NL-17-074, Supplemental Information Regarding Reply to Request for Additional Information Set 2017-01 for the Review of the License Renewal Application (LRA)2017-06-27027 June 2017
Supplemental Information Regarding Reply to Request for Additional Information Set 2017-01 for the Review of the License Renewal Application (LRA)
NL-17-069, Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-05 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)2017-06-0808 June 2017
Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-05 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)
NL-17-070, Additional Information for the Review of the Plants License Renewal Application (LRA) Regarding the Containment Leak Rate Program2017-05-31031 May 2017
Additional Information for the Review of the Plants License Renewal Application (LRA) Regarding the Containment Leak Rate Program
NL-17-061, Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-042017-05-24024 May 2017
Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-04
NL-17-060, Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-02 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)2017-05-19019 May 2017
Reply to Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-02 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)
NL-17-053, Reply to Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-03 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)2017-05-18018 May 2017
Reply to Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point License Renewal Application RAI Set 2017-03 (CAC Nos. MD5407 and MD5408)
NL-17-052, Reply to Request for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application, Set 2017-012017-05-0808 May 2017
Reply to Request for Additional Information for the Review of the License Renewal Application, Set 2017-01
NL-17-044, Response to Request for Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel2017-04-19019 April 2017
Response to Request for Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding Amendment of Inter-Unit Transfer of Spent Fuel
NL-17-039, Updated Response to Request for Additional Information for the Review of License Renewal Application Environmental Review-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Based on a Reduced Renewal Period2017-03-31031 March 2017
Updated Response to Request for Additional Information for the Review of License Renewal Application Environmental Review-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Based on a Reduced Renewal Period
ML17096A2122017-03-23023 March 2017
Entergy Engineering Report No. IP-RPT-16-00078, Indian Point RAI CLI-16-07 SAMA Cost-Benefit Sensitivities Rev. 1 (March 23, 2017)
NL-17-002, Response to Request for Additional Information for Review of the License Renewal Application Environmental Review - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives2017-02-0101 February 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information for Review of the License Renewal Application Environmental Review - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
NL-17-013, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request IP3-ISl-RR-09, Alternative to the Depth Sizing Qualification Requirement2017-01-26026 January 2017
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request IP3-ISl-RR-09, Alternative to the Depth Sizing Qualification Requirement
NL-17-005, Actions Concerning License Renewal Commitments 41 and 42 in Response to LR-ISG-2016-01, Changes to Aging Management Guidance for Various Steam Generator Components.2017-01-17017 January 2017
Actions Concerning License Renewal Commitments 41 and 42 in Response to LR-ISG-2016-01, Changes to Aging Management Guidance for Various Steam Generator Components.
NL-17-002, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3, IP-RPT-16-00077, RAI CLI-16-07 MACCS2 Sensitivities, Rev. 0 (Jan. 4, 2017)2017-01-0404 January 2017
Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3, IP-RPT-16-00077, RAI CLI-16-07 MACCS2 Sensitivities, Rev. 0 (Jan. 4, 2017)
ML17096A2112017-01-0404 January 2017
Entergy Engineering Report No. IP-RPT-16-00077, Indian Point RAI CLI-16-07 MACCS2 Sensitivities, Rev. 0 (Jan 4, 2017)
ML17040A4352017-01-0404 January 2017
IP-RPT-16-00078, RAI CLI-16-07 SAMA Cost-Benefit Sensitivities, Rev. 0 (Jan. 4, 2017)
ML17040A4342017-01-0404 January 2017
IP-RPT-16-00077, RAI CLI-16-07 MACCS2 Sensitivities, Rev. 0 (Jan. 4, 2017)
2023-07-11
[Table view] |
Text
From: Mirzai, Mahvash To: Guzman, Richard
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:01:45 PM
- Rich, Please find below the response to the clarification items that were discussed during our teleconference at 2:00 pm on October 19, 2017:
RAI-4 Follow-up Question The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly. The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60).
For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 years cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower burnup of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RAI-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies).
Response to RAI-4 Follow-up Question We agree that the source terms for the maximum BPRA burnup allowed in the inner region of loading pattern 11 may be slightly higher than what was used in the analyses. Here is our perspective:
- For clarification, the value for the design basis of 848.4 Curies is only for the active region, the total design basis BPRA Cobalt-60 activity is 895 Ci (Total amount from Table 7.2.5).
- We agree with the value of 1101 Ci for 60 GWd/mtU and 6 years, which can be derived from Table 7.2.9.
- For 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years, as a check, we had initially just scaled the value of 1101 Ci by the burnup, resulting in 1101/60*45 = 826 Ci, which would have been below the value used in the analysis of 895 Ci.
- However, we now realize that due to the lower assumed enrichment for the 45 GWd/mtU fuel of 3.2 wt%, and the fact that BPRA curies does not scale in exact proportion to burnup, the cobalt content would be larger. A more detailed upper bound calculation indicates a BPRA with a burnup of 45 GWd/mtU, cooling time of 6 years, and paired with an assembly in the reactor core with an enrichment of 3.2 wt% having a Cobalt-60 activity of approximately 980 Ci, i.e. a value about 10%
higher than the design basis value used.
- When considering this increase in the analyses for loading pattern 11, where the four inner spent fuel assemblies assume a source of 980 Ci rather than 895 Ci, dose rates increase on average by about 1.0%. The maximum dose rate increase is less than 4%. No conclusions are affected by this increase.
- Discussed Action o A qualitative discussion will be added to Chapter 7, in Sections 7.0.1 and 7.4.3.2, to explain that for the inner region of pattern 11, the BPRA activity for 45 GWd/mtU and 6 years may be slightly higher than that of the design basis value used, but that this has no significant effect on dose rates, and does not affect any conclusions.
o An Appendix will be added to the Shielding Calculation package HI-2084109 to document alternative BPRA activity and dose rate calculations related to loading pattern 11.
RAI-8 Follow-up Question Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances. The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.10, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC. The staff would like to get clarification on this item.
Response to RAI-8 Follow-up Question The doses shown in Table 7.4.22 are dominated by the dose rates from the bare STC, and by dose rates on top of the STC or HI-TRAC. Only the activities characterized as "Measure the dose rate and prepare for transfer operation to the VCT" and "Movement of HI-TRAC to Unit 2 FSB" would be affected, and these activities contribute less than 0.5% to the primary dose and less than 1.5% to the secondary dose. The small increase in the HI-TRAC dose rates (changes shown on Table 7.4.10) would hence have a negligible effect.
Discussed Action:
- A brief discussion will be added to Chapter 7, Section 7.4.12, on this issue, but Table 7.4.22 will remain unchanged.
RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Question The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass) completed neglected from the calculation models?
Response to RAI-10 and RAI-11 Follow-up Question The RCCAs are completely neglected in the calculations and the calculational models for the comparisons against the measured dose rates, i.e. neither the materials nor the source terms are credited. With respect to the materials, this is consistent with the design basis calculations, where the materials of the RCCAs are also not credited.
No further action needed for this issue, i.e. no further changes to the Shielding Calculation package or Licensing Report.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
- Thanks, Mahvash Mirzai Nuclear Safety/License Specialist IV
Indian Point Entergy Center 914-254-7714 (Work) 203-705-9676 (Cell) mmirzai@entergy.com From: Guzman, Richard [1]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:43 PM To: Mirzai, Mahvash
Subject:
RE: RE: RE: Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response From: Guzman, Richard [2]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:32 AM To: Mirzai, Mahvash Cc: Walpole, Robert W
Subject:
Indian Point Inter-Unit SF Transfer Amendment - Clarification Call re: 10/2 RAI response EXTERNAL SENDER. DO NOT click links, or open attachments, if sender is unknown, or the message seems suspicious in any way.
DO NOT provide your user ID or password.
- Mahvash, Good morning. I just left you a voice message. Below are clarification items the staff would like to discuss via teleconference. Please let me know if you can support a call this Thursday (preferable) or Friday. At this time, we are available 9:30-10:30a,11-12p, or 2-2:30p on Thursday. If not, please provide some alternate proposed times and I will check availability w/the technical reviewer.
RAI-4
The licensee proposes the BPRA burnup and cooling time limits for the new fuel loads (Loads 7 thru 12) to be the same as the host assembly that the BPRA. This is based on an analysis that uses a BRPA equivalent burnup/exposure of 60 GWd/MTU and the cooling time of the host assembly. The staff notes that this approach appears reasonable to all but the inner region of Load 11. Per the analysis in the SAR/licensing report, any BPRAs with a cooling time less than 9 years would use the design basis BPRA source (which is actually 848.4 curies of Co-60). For 60 GWd/MTU at 6 yrs cooling (the cooling time of the inner assemblies in Load 11), the BPRA would be at 1101 Ci. The staff also notes that even with the lower burnup of the host assemblies at 45 GWd/MTU, the resulting BPRA curie level would be higher than the design basis amount. The staff would like to discuss the response to RAI-4 and the proposed TS (as it relates to Load 11 inner assemblies).
RAI-8
Table 7.4.10 shows some of the dose rates on the HI-TRAC at the surface and at 1 meter changing, but none of those at further distances. The staff notes that with some of the dose rates changing in Table 7.4.10, none of the estimates in Table 7.4.22 had to change for
operations and personnel locations that are at these close distances from the HI-TRAC.
The staff would like to get clarification on this item.
RAI-10, RAI-11 The staff requests clarification on the description of how RCCAs are treated in the dose rate calculations for comparison against the measured dose rates for STC #s 1 and 3. The SAR and the shielding calculation package (Section I.5.5) state that the calculations neglect the RCCAs. Is it that the RCCAs presence and materials are credited in the model but not the source? Or are the RCCAs (including their materials and mass) completed neglected from the calculation models?
~~~~~~~~~
Rich Guzman Sr. PM, Division Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: O-9C7 l Phone: (301) 415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov
