ML15055A091
| ML15055A091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/2015 |
| From: | Andrea George Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | David Bice, Clark R Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| References | |
| TAC MF5698 | |
| Download: ML15055A091 (4) | |
Text
1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:
George, Andrea Sent:
Monday, February 23, 2015 7:37 AM To:
'CLARK, ROBERT W'; BICE, DAVID B (ANO)
Cc:
'PYLE, STEPHENIE L'
Subject:
Requests for Additional Information - ANO-2 License Amendment Request to Eliminate Exercising of CEA 18 per SR 4.1.3.1.2 - TAC No. MF5698 Attachments:
MF5698 - RAIs.pdf Mr. Clark and Mr. Bice, By letter dated February 6, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15041A068), Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request to eliminate exercising Control Element Assembly (CEA) 18 for the remainder of operating Cycle 24 at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). This proposed amendment would modify a Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 Note such that CEA 18 may be excluded from SR performance for the remainder of Cycle 24.
In the course of its review, the NRC staff has determined that additional information is required to complete its evaluation. The formal requests for additional information (RAIs) are attached to this email. A clarification call regarding these RAIs was held on Friday, February 20, 2015, and it was agreed that a response would be provided by February 27, 2015. If you foresee any issues with meeting this date, please let me know.
Sincerely, Andrea George Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1081
Hearing Identifier:
NRR_PMDA Email Number:
1889 Mail Envelope Properties (Andrea.George@nrc.gov20150223073700)
Subject:
Requests for Additional Information - ANO-2 License Amendment Request to Eliminate Exercising of CEA 18 per SR 4.1.3.1.2 - TAC No. MF5698 Sent Date:
2/23/2015 7:37:05 AM Received Date:
2/23/2015 7:37:00 AM From:
George, Andrea Created By:
Andrea.George@nrc.gov Recipients:
"'PYLE, STEPHENIE L'" <SPYLE@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None
"'CLARK, ROBERT W'" <RCLARK@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None "BICE, DAVID B (ANO)" <DBICE@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1185 2/23/2015 7:37:00 AM MF5698 - RAIs.pdf 120765 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
Yes Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ELIMINATE MOVEMENT OF CONTROL ELEMENT ASSEMBLY PER SR 4.1.3.1.2 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 By letter dated February 6, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15041A068), Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request to eliminate exercising Control Element Assembly (CEA) 18 for the remainder of operating Cycle 24 at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2).
This proposed amendment would modify a Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 Note such that CEA 18 may be excluded from SR performance for the remainder of Cycle 24.
Based on the review of the license amendment request (LAR), the NRC staff has determined that additional information is required to complete its review, as stated below.
SRXB - RAI 1 In its LAR, the licensee states that the proposed amendment is necessary due to a degrading Upper Gripper Coil (UGC) which was initially identified while performing SR 4.1.3.1.2 in October 2014. The licensee noted further degradation of the UGC while performing the subsequent SR 4.1.3.1.2 in January 2015. Is there any other possible cause (other than the degradation of the UGC) for the difficulties encountered while performing SR 4.1.3.1.2? If so, describe the possible causes.
SRXB - RAI 2 In its LAR, the licensee states that troubleshooting identified several possible causes for the degradation of the UGC and that degradation could cause the rod to drop into the core. Could any of the identified degradation mechanisms prevent the rod from dropping into the core when the reactor trip breakers are opened?
SRXB - RAI 3 Are there are any other possible degradation mechanisms of the UGC that could prevent the rod from dropping into the core when the reactor trip breakers are opened?
SRXB - RAI 4 In its LAR, the licensee states that electrical problems will not prevent insertion of a CEA into the core when the reactor trip breakers are opened. The licensee also states that heating is the primary driver for the UGC degradation. Is it possible for the heating to cause some non-electrical failure that could prevent the rod from dropping into the core when the reactor trip breakers are opened?
SRXB - RAI 5 In its LAR, the licensee states that it performed calculations to show that adequate shutdown margin is available (per the current Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) requirement) assuming both CEA 18 and the single CEA of highest reactivity worth failed to insert. Please confirm that these calculations were performed using the NRC-approved methodologies currently used by ANO-2 to generate the COLR.