ML081970250
| ML081970250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2008 |
| From: | Geoffrey Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Willoughby P Florida Power & Light Co, Florida Power & Light Energy Seabrook |
| Miller G, NRR/DORL, 415-2481 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML081970250 (2) | |
Text
From:
Ed Miller Sent:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:23 AM To:
'paul_willoughby@fpl.com'
Subject:
Seabrook SG Call
- Paul, Here are the clarifying questions the reviewer had on the RAI response. Please note that these do not represent an official agency position and are being provide to facilitate the conference call to be held later today.
The conference call information is as follows:
1:00-1:30 (301) 415-5650 Ed Miller 415-2481 DRAFT CLARIFYING QUESTIONS:
- 1. Please clarify the cumulative EFPM (since the start of the commercial operation) for all outages in the 90 EFPM sequential period. Please provide the cumulative EFPM at OR01.
Please note the response to RAI 1 is not clear on the starting point for the cumulative EFPM provided in Table 1 (e.g., is it the cumulative EFPMs starting after the accumulation of 120 EFPM or is it the cumulative EFPM since OR08). In addition, if Seabrook had accumulated 116 EFPM (per 10/12/04 letter) on its steam generators in OR08, it is not clear how you have calculated the start and stop points of the sequential periods considering the 120 month sequential period starts after the first in-service inspection (which presumably was 12 to 16 EPFMs in duration).
- 2. The response to RAI 3 is not clear on whether any other foreign objects/loose parts were detected. Please confirm that no other loose parts than those discussed in response to RAI 3 were detected during the FORSAR during OR11. Also, in the response to RAI 3, previous inspections of the tube support plate quatrefoil shaped holes were discussed. Please clarify when these previous inspections were performed
- 3. In Tables 4 and 8 (SGs A and C), it appears that FPLE had detected wear scars that occurred in prior cycles that were attributed to foreign objects/loose parts that are no longer present at these locations. Please confirm this understanding. In Tables 6 and 10 (SGs B and D), it appears the licensee detected new wear indications (i.e., not present in prior inspections) that were attributed to foreign objects. Please confirm that no foreign objects/loose parts (or potential loose parts from the eddy current data) exist at these locations.
E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties ()
Subject:
Seabrook SG Call Sent Date: 07/15/2008 9:59:06 AM
Received Date: 07/15/2008 10:23:00 AM From: Ed Miller Created By: Ed.Miller@nrc.gov Recipients:
paul_willoughby@fpl.com ('paul_willoughby@fpl.com')
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7133 07/15/2008 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: