ML17024A329: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML17024A329
| number = ML17024A329
| issue date = 12/15/2016
| issue date = 12/15/2016
| title = 2016/12/15 NRR E-mail Capture - Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper'S SFP Evaluation
| title = NRR E-mail Capture - Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper'S SFP Evaluation
| author name = Vega F G
| author name = Vega F
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/JLD
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/JLD
| addressee name = Kirkpatrick B M
| addressee name = Kirkpatrick B
| addressee affiliation = Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
| addressee affiliation = Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
| docket = 05000298
| docket = 05000298
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Vega, Frankie Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:00 AM To:Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)
{{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:                             Vega, Frankie Sent:                             Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:00 AM To:                               Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Hello Mrs. Kirkpatrick;  
Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Hello Mrs. Kirkpatrick; Hope youre doing well. Im currently reviewing Coopers Rec 2.1 SFP evaluation. In order to complete my review I would need additional information / clarification on the piping evaluation performed as part of the SFP submittal. Please see my question below:
The piping evaluation section states that piping attached to the SFP could not be confirmed to have been evaluated to the SSE. In addition, this section states that piping is attached such that drain-down is possible to 10 above top of fuel, which is a safe storage depth. However, analyses in EPRIs SFP Seismic Evaluation Guidance (EPRI 3002007148) considered initial SFP water losses only from seismically induced sloshing, and did not consider additional water losses such as from a potential SFP pipe-break located 10 above the top of the spent fuel. Additional information is needed to evaluate the potential for boil-off and uncovering the top third of the spent fuel within 72 hours of a seismically induced pipe-break that resulted in unmitigated water loss to 10 above the top of the spent fuel, which is the event sequence outlined in the SPID (EPRI 1025287).
If need additional information from our end please let me know.
Thanks Frankie G. Vega, P.E.
Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12 1


Hope you're doing well. I'm currently reviewing Cooper's Rec 2.1 SFP evaluation. In order to complete my review I would need additional information / clarification on the piping evaluation performed as part of the SFP
Hearing Identifier:     NRR_PMDA Email Number:           3283 Mail Envelope Properties     (Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov20161215085900)
 
submittal. Please see my question below:
 
The piping evaluation section states that piping attached to the SFP could not be confirmed to have been
 
evaluated to the SSE. In addition, this section states that piping is attached such that drain-down is possible to 10' above top of fuel, which is a "safe storage depth." However, analyses in EPRI's SFP Seismic Evaluation Guidance (EPRI 3002007148) considered initial SFP water losses only from seismically induced sloshing, and did not consider additional water losses such as from a potential SFP pipe-break located 10' above the top of the spent fuel. Additional information is needed to evaluate the potential for boil-off and uncovering the top thir d of the spent fuel within 72 hours of a seismically induced pipe-break that resulted in unmitigated water loss to 10' above the top of the spent fuel, which is the event sequence outlined in the SPID (EPRI 1025287).
 
If need additional information from our end please let me know.
 
Thanks Frankie G. Vega, P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12
 
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3283   Mail Envelope Properties   (Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov20161215085900)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Sent Date:   12/15/2016 8:59:58 AM Received Date: 12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM From:   Vega, Frankie Created By:   Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov Recipients:     "Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)" <bmkirkp@nppd.com>
Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Sent Date:               12/15/2016 8:59:58 AM Received Date:           12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM From:                   Vega, Frankie Created By:             Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov Recipients:
Tracking Status: None Post Office:     Files     Size     Date & Time MESSAGE   1320     12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM
"Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)" <bmkirkp@nppd.com>
 
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Options Priority:     Standard   Return Notification:   No   Reply Requested:   No   Sensitivity:     Normal Expiration Date:     Recipients Received:}}
Files                           Size                   Date & Time MESSAGE                         1320                   12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM Options Priority:                       Standard Return Notification:             No Reply Requested:                 No Sensitivity:                     Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:}}

Latest revision as of 10:56, 4 December 2019

NRR E-mail Capture - Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper'S SFP Evaluation
ML17024A329
Person / Time
Site: Cooper Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/15/2016
From: Frankie Vega
Japan Lessons-Learned Division
To: Kirkpatrick B
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
References
Download: ML17024A329 (2)
v • d • e


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:00 AM To: Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)

Subject:

Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Hello Mrs. Kirkpatrick; Hope youre doing well. Im currently reviewing Coopers Rec 2.1 SFP evaluation. In order to complete my review I would need additional information / clarification on the piping evaluation performed as part of the SFP submittal. Please see my question below:

The piping evaluation section states that piping attached to the SFP could not be confirmed to have been evaluated to the SSE. In addition, this section states that piping is attached such that drain-down is possible to 10 above top of fuel, which is a safe storage depth. However, analyses in EPRIs SFP Seismic Evaluation Guidance (EPRI 3002007148) considered initial SFP water losses only from seismically induced sloshing, and did not consider additional water losses such as from a potential SFP pipe-break located 10 above the top of the spent fuel. Additional information is needed to evaluate the potential for boil-off and uncovering the top third of the spent fuel within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of a seismically induced pipe-break that resulted in unmitigated water loss to 10 above the top of the spent fuel, which is the event sequence outlined in the SPID (EPRI 1025287).

If need additional information from our end please let me know.

Thanks Frankie G. Vega, P.E.

Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3283 Mail Envelope Properties (Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov20161215085900)

Subject:

Rec 2.1 Seismic: Cooper's SFP evaluation Sent Date: 12/15/2016 8:59:58 AM Received Date: 12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM From: Vega, Frankie Created By: Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Kirkpatrick, Brenda M. (bmkirkp@nppd.com)" <bmkirkp@nppd.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1320 12/15/2016 8:59:00 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17024A329&oldid=2229415"