ML071160415: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 04/25/2007
| issue date = 04/25/2007
| title = Additional Issues to Discuss in the 5/7/07 Meeting
| title = Additional Issues to Discuss in the 5/7/07 Meeting
| author name = Vaidya B K
| author name = Vaidya B
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV
| addressee name = Scarpello M, Simpson S D, Vasey R G
| addressee name = Scarpello M, Simpson S, Vasey R
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Corp
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Corp
| docket = 05000315, 05000316, 05000416
| docket = 05000315, 05000316, 05000416
| license number = DPR-058, DPR-074, NPF-029
| license number = DPR-058, DPR-074, NPF-029
| contact person = Tam P S
| contact person = Tam P
| case reference number = N-716, TAC MD3044, TAC MD3137, TAC MD3138
| case reference number = N-716, TAC MD3044, TAC MD3137, TAC MD3138
| document type = E-Mail
| document type = E-Mail
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Accession No. ML071160415From: Bhalchandra VaidyaTo:FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM; gdavant@entergy.com; MCRAWF1@entergy.com; mkscarpello@aep.com; rgvasey@aep.com; sdsimpson@aep.com Date: 04/25/2007 11:45:04 AM
{{#Wiki_filter:Accession No. ML071160415 From:           Bhalchandra Vaidya To:             FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM; gdavant@entergy.com; MCRAWF1@entergy.com; mkscarpello@aep.com; rgvasey@aep.com; sdsimpson@aep.com Date:           04/25/2007 11:45:04 AM


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, Code Case N-716Please see the attached e-mail from the staff reviewer. As he has suggested in the e-mail,please be prepared to discuss the subject matter. Also, if you can bring any additional evaluations, analyses, supporting information, etc. for the meeting (better yet, if you can send it to me ahead of the meeting ), the discussion would go smoother.
Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, Code Case N-716 Please see the attached e-mail from the staff reviewer. As he has suggested in the e-mail, please be prepared to discuss the subject matter. Also, if you can bring any additional evaluations, analyses, supporting information, etc. for the meeting (better yet, if you can send it to me ahead of the meeting ), the discussion would go smoother.
 
: Thanks, Bhalchandra Vaidya NRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC:             Peter Tam Mail Envelope Properties (462F7778.FBB : 10 : 35718)
Thanks,Bhalchandra VaidyaNRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC:Peter Tam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mail Envelope Properties(462F7778.FBB : 10 : 35718)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, CodeCase N-716 Creation Date04/25/2007 11:44:56 AMFrom: Bhalchandra VaidyaCreated By:BKV@nrc.govRecipientsaep.com mkscarpello (mkscarpello@aep.com) rgvasey (rgvasey@aep.com) sdsimpson (sdsimpson@aep.com)entergy.com   FBURFOR (FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM)
Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, Code Case N-716 Creation Date          04/25/2007 11:44:56 AM From:                   Bhalchandra Vaidya Created By:             BKV@nrc.gov Recipients aep.com mkscarpello (mkscarpello@aep.com) rgvasey (rgvasey@aep.com) sdsimpson (sdsimpson@aep.com) entergy.com FBURFOR (FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM)
GDAVANT (gdavant@entergy.com)
GDAVANT (gdavant@entergy.com)
MCRAWF1 (MCRAWF1@entergy.com)nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 PST CC (Peter Tam)Post OfficeRouteaep.com entergy.com TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01nrc.govFilesSizeDate & Time MESSAGE95404/25/2007 11:44:56 AM MailOptions Expiration Date:
MCRAWF1 (MCRAWF1@entergy.com) nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 PST CC (Peter Tam)
None Priority:Standard ReplyRequested:
Post Office                                                                Route aep.com entergy.com TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01                                                          nrc.gov Files                          Size                  Date & Time
No Return Notification:
 
None Concealed  
MESSAGE                          954                  04/25/2007 11:44:56 AM Mail Options Expiration Date:                 None Priority:                         Standard ReplyRequested:                   No Return Notification:             None Concealed  


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
 
No Security:                         Standard From:             Stephen Dinsmore To:               Andrea Keim; Bhalchandra Vaidya Date:             04/24/2007 4:47:29 PM
No Security:Standard>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Stephen DinsmoreTo:Andrea Keim; Bhalchandra VaidyaDate: 04/24/2007 4:47:29 PM


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meetingAfter further review of the draft responses to the second set of RAI's, I propose the following asa topic for discussion at the May 7, 2007 meeting.
Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting After further review of the draft responses to the second set of RAIs, I propose the following as a topic for discussion at the May 7, 2007 meeting.
 
In the response to RAI #1 in RAI set #2, the licensee stated, in general terms, why the proposed methodology is consistent with RG 1.178. Such generalities may not, however, be needed or sufficient. The method propose by the licensee effectively replaces the EPRI RI-ISI process with the generic categorization, supplemented by the IPE flooding analysis.
In the response to RAI #1 in RAI set #2, the licensee stated, in general terms, why the proposed methodology is consistent with RG 1.178. Such generalities may not, however, be needed or sufficient. The method propose by the licensee effectively replaces the EPRI RI-ISI process with the generic categorization, supplemented by the IPE flooding analysis.  
Licensee IPE flooding analysis have been reviewed against the ASME RAS-S-2000 standard (currently Addendum B has been issued). Rather than a discussion in general terms about consistency between the approved RI-ISI methodology and the proposed methods, it would be most productive to discuss the adequacy of the flooding evaluation with respect to a RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the specific supporting requirements (SRs) that characterize a licensees flooding analysis. The ASME standard includes three categories for each SR (Cat. I the lowest, Cat. III the highest) and the licensees analysis is placed into one of the three categories for each SR by a peer review group.
 
These SRs describe many of the characteristics of a flooding analysis relied upon in a RI-ISI evaluation For example, for discussion purposes, a rating of Cat. III for SR IF-C3 appears consistent with RI-ISI analysis requirements. Similarly, a Cat. II for SR IF-C6 and IF-C8 might be sufficient for RI-ISI analysis.
Licensee IPE flooding analysis have been reviewed against the ASME RAS-S-2000 standard (currently Addendum B has been issued). Rather than a discussion in general terms about consistency between the approved RI-ISI methodology and the proposed methods, it would be most productive to discuss the adequacy of the flooding evaluation with respect to a RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the specific supporting requirements (SR's) that characterize a licensee's flooding analysis. The ASME standard includes three categories for each SR (Cat. I the lowest, Cat. III the highest) and the licensee's analysis is placed into one of the three categories foreach SR by a peer review group.
It would be useful to discuss the specific SR results of the peer review of GG and DC Cooks IPE flooding analyses at the meeting, and how these results compare to the characteristics of an acceptable evaluation for RI-ISI programs. It may be feasible to appropriately characterize the adequacy of GG and DC Cooks flooding analyst to support the RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the categories assigned to the flooding SRs. If the ASME standard will not identify an analysis equivalent to the RI-ISI analysis (perhaps because of the grouping in IF-C4 and screening in IF-D7), additional RI-ISI specific additions to the SRs (or the sufficiency of the SRs instead of the RI-ISI analysis) could be discussed.
 
steve
These SRs describe many of the characteristics of a flooding analysis relied upon in a RI-ISI evaluation For example, for discussion purposes, a rating of Cat. III for SR IF-C3 appears consistent with RI-ISI analysis requirements. Similarly, a Cat. II for SR IF-C6 and IF-C8 might be sufficient for RI-ISI analysis.
>>> Bhalchandra Vaidya 04/12/2007 1:05 PM >>>
 
This transmittal includes Draft RAI responses for the second set of RAIs from grand Gulf as well as those for first set again.
It would be useful to discuss the specific SR results of the peer review of GG and DC Cook's IPE flooding analyses at the meeting, and how these results compare to the characteristics of an acceptable evaluation for RI-ISI programs. It may be feasible to appropriately characterize the adequacy of GG and DC Cooks flooding analyst to support the RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the categories assigned to the flooding SRs. If the ASME standard will not identify an analysis equivalent to the RI-ISI analysis (perhaps because of the grouping in IF-C4 and screening in IF-D7), additional RI-ISI specific additions to the SR's (or the sufficiency of the SRs instead of the RI-ISI analysis) could be discussed.steve
Let me know, if you have any comments or follow up questions that the licensee needs to prepare responses, and send those to us before the meeting.
>>> Bhalchandra Vaidya 04/12/2007 1:05 PM >>>This transmittal includes Draft RAI responses for the second set of RAIs from grand Gulf as well as those for first set again.Let me know, if you have any comments or follow up questions that the licensee needs toprepare responses, and send those to us before the meeting.
: Thanks, Bhalchandra Vaidya NRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC:           Donald Harrison}}
Thanks,Bhalchandra VaidyaNRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC:Donald Harrison}}

Latest revision as of 17:07, 13 March 2020

Additional Issues to Discuss in the 5/7/07 Meeting
ML071160415
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf, Cook  American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 04/25/2007
From: Bhalchandra Vaidya
NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV
To: Scarpello M, Simpson S, Vasey R
Entergy Corp
Tam P
References
N-716, TAC MD3044, TAC MD3137, TAC MD3138
Download: ML071160415 (3)


Text

Accession No. ML071160415 From: Bhalchandra Vaidya To: FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM; gdavant@entergy.com; MCRAWF1@entergy.com; mkscarpello@aep.com; rgvasey@aep.com; sdsimpson@aep.com Date: 04/25/2007 11:45:04 AM

Subject:

Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, Code Case N-716 Please see the attached e-mail from the staff reviewer. As he has suggested in the e-mail, please be prepared to discuss the subject matter. Also, if you can bring any additional evaluations, analyses, supporting information, etc. for the meeting (better yet, if you can send it to me ahead of the meeting ), the discussion would go smoother.

Thanks, Bhalchandra Vaidya NRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC: Peter Tam Mail Envelope Properties (462F7778.FBB : 10 : 35718)

Subject:

Fwd: Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting, Code Case N-716 Creation Date 04/25/2007 11:44:56 AM From: Bhalchandra Vaidya Created By: BKV@nrc.gov Recipients aep.com mkscarpello (mkscarpello@aep.com) rgvasey (rgvasey@aep.com) sdsimpson (sdsimpson@aep.com) entergy.com FBURFOR (FBURFOR@ENTERGY.COM)

GDAVANT (gdavant@entergy.com)

MCRAWF1 (MCRAWF1@entergy.com) nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 PST CC (Peter Tam)

Post Office Route aep.com entergy.com TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time

MESSAGE 954 04/25/2007 11:44:56 AM Mail Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard From: Stephen Dinsmore To: Andrea Keim; Bhalchandra Vaidya Date: 04/24/2007 4:47:29 PM

Subject:

Proposed Topic for discussion at May 7 RI-ISI meeting After further review of the draft responses to the second set of RAIs, I propose the following as a topic for discussion at the May 7, 2007 meeting.

In the response to RAI #1 in RAI set #2, the licensee stated, in general terms, why the proposed methodology is consistent with RG 1.178. Such generalities may not, however, be needed or sufficient. The method propose by the licensee effectively replaces the EPRI RI-ISI process with the generic categorization, supplemented by the IPE flooding analysis.

Licensee IPE flooding analysis have been reviewed against the ASME RAS-S-2000 standard (currently Addendum B has been issued). Rather than a discussion in general terms about consistency between the approved RI-ISI methodology and the proposed methods, it would be most productive to discuss the adequacy of the flooding evaluation with respect to a RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the specific supporting requirements (SRs) that characterize a licensees flooding analysis. The ASME standard includes three categories for each SR (Cat. I the lowest, Cat. III the highest) and the licensees analysis is placed into one of the three categories for each SR by a peer review group.

These SRs describe many of the characteristics of a flooding analysis relied upon in a RI-ISI evaluation For example, for discussion purposes, a rating of Cat. III for SR IF-C3 appears consistent with RI-ISI analysis requirements. Similarly, a Cat. II for SR IF-C6 and IF-C8 might be sufficient for RI-ISI analysis.

It would be useful to discuss the specific SR results of the peer review of GG and DC Cooks IPE flooding analyses at the meeting, and how these results compare to the characteristics of an acceptable evaluation for RI-ISI programs. It may be feasible to appropriately characterize the adequacy of GG and DC Cooks flooding analyst to support the RI-ISI evaluation in terms of the categories assigned to the flooding SRs. If the ASME standard will not identify an analysis equivalent to the RI-ISI analysis (perhaps because of the grouping in IF-C4 and screening in IF-D7), additional RI-ISI specific additions to the SRs (or the sufficiency of the SRs instead of the RI-ISI analysis) could be discussed.

steve

>>> Bhalchandra Vaidya 04/12/2007 1:05 PM >>>

This transmittal includes Draft RAI responses for the second set of RAIs from grand Gulf as well as those for first set again.

Let me know, if you have any comments or follow up questions that the licensee needs to prepare responses, and send those to us before the meeting.

Thanks, Bhalchandra Vaidya NRR/DORL/LPL-IV/PM 301-415-3308 M/S: O-7D1 bkv@nrc.gov CC: Donald Harrison