ML13281A787: 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)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NL-13-127, 10 CFR 50.59(d) Report for Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3]]
| number = ML13281A787
| issue date = 09/30/2013
| title = 10 CFR 50.59(d) Report for Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3
| author name = Walpole R W
| author affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000286
| license number = DPR-064
| contact person =
| case reference number = NL-13-127
| document type = Letter
| page count = 6
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Indian Point Energy Center450 Broadway, GSBP.O. Box 249'~~'En ~Buchanan, N.Y. 10511-0249 v--- EntergRobert WalpoleManager, Licensing Tel 914 254 6710NL-13-127 September 30, 2013U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk11545 Rockville Pike, TWFN-2F1Rockville, MD 20852-2738
 
==Subject:==
 
10 CFR 50.59(d)
Report for Indian Point Eneray Center Unit No. 3Indian Point Unit No. 3Docket No. 50-286License No. DPR-64
 
==Dear Sir or Madam:==
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 (d)(2), please find in Attachment 1 a 50.59 report listing andsummary report of the changes, tests and experiments implemented at Indian Point Unit 3between April 8, 2011 and March 31, 2013, and or utilized in support of the UFSAR update.The 50.59 Evaluations set forth in the report represent the changes in the facilities, changes inprocedures, and tests and experiments implemented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.Attachment 2 provides a summary of these evaluations implemented for the period definedabove.There are no new commitments made by Entergy contained in this letter. If you have anyquestions, please contact me at (914) 254-6710.
Sincerely, RW/asAttachment 1 -50.59 Report ListingAttachment 2 -50.59 Summary of Changes, Tests and Experiments cc: see next page NL-13-127 Docket No. 50-286Page 2 of 2cc: Mr. Douglas Pickett, Senior Project Manager, NRC NRR DORLMr. William Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1Ms. Bridget Frymire, New York State Department of Public ServiceMr. Francis J. Murray, Jr., President
& CEO, NYSERDANRC Resident Inspector's Office ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-13-127 50.59 REPORT LISTINGENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 3DOCKET NO. 50-286 Docket No. 50-286NL-13-127 Attachment 1Page 1 of 150.59 REPORT LISTING50.59 EVALUATION NUMBER Rev. No. Unit 3 -2011 Report50.59 EVALUATION TITLE12-3001-00-EVAL 0 Replacing the PIPEFLOW Hydraulic Analysis Computer Program with a New Hydraulic Analysis Computer Program for Analyzing Design Basis Service Water System Performance ATTACHMENT 2 TO NL-1 3-12750.59 SUMMARY OF CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 3DOCKET NO. 50-286 Docket No. 50-286NL-13-127 Attachment 2Page 1 of 150.59 Summary of Changes, Tests and Experiments 50.59 Evaluation Rev. No. TITLENo.12-3001-00-EVAL 0 Replacing the PIPEFLOW Hydraulic AnalysisComputer Program with a New Hydraulic AnalysisComputer Program for Analyzing Design BasisService Water System Performance Brief Description of the Change, Test or Experiment:
As described in UFSAR Section 9.6.1, the PIPEFLOW hydraulic analysis computerprogram is currently being used to demonstrate design function of the service watersystem under various postulated design basis configurations.
The proposed activity is touse another hydraulic analysis computer program (PROTO-FLO) in place of thePIPEFLOW hydraulic analysis computer program.
This activity requires evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if using another hydraulic analysis computer programin place of PIPEFLOW is a departure from a method of evaluation described in theUFSAR.Summary of the associated 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation The 50.59 Evaluation determined that use of the PROTO-FLO computer program inplace of the PIPEFLOW computer program is not a departure from a method ofevaluation since it was shown that both computer programs use the same calculational methodology (framework);
that is, both programs solve the same set of equations toobtain flow rate and pressure at each node point in the service water system hydraulic model. The programs differ in the use of pipe and fitting resistance coefficients and bythe numerical analysis used to solve the system of equations.
: However, this is simply achange to one or more elements of the method of evaluation that yielded predicted flowsthat are essentially the same of more conservative.
The change was also shown to bewithin the constraints and limitations of the original IP3 operating license 1973 AEC SER(including Supplements 1 & 2), and the 1989 NRC SER that approved the use of limitedsize breaks in the IP3 service water system. Therefore, use of the PROTO-FLO computer program in place of the PIPEFLOW computer program does not require priorNRC approval.}}

Revision as of 23:18, 13 July 2018

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13281A787&oldid=889318"