ML083250238
| ML083250238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/2008 |
| From: | Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML083250238 (9) | |
Text
Turkey Point Unit 3 FPL/NRC Meeting November 6, 2008
2 Agenda
- Background
- Unit 3 Upgrades
- Units 3 Alternative Approach
- Path Forward
- Summary
3 Background
Turkey Point Unit 3 response submitted on June 30, 2008, which included chemical effects data from Vuez NRC issued letter to FPL on September 17, 2008 which stated
- NRC has identified several issues with the Vuez test protocol
- Request additional information (RAI) with respect to the testing
- Requested that FPL communicate their plan for demonstrating adequate sump performance by October 3, 2008
- FPL will need to submit an extension request On October 3, 2008 a telephone conference was held to discuss the Turkey Point Unit 3 alternative approach for demonstrating compliance
4 Unit 3 Upgrades
- In 2007, FPL installed new strainers with a surface area of approximately 5,500 ft2
- Mitigated a significant amount of insulation
- Existing RCS loops and majority of SGs insulation was RMI
- Replaced the Pressurizer Surge Line insulation with reflective metal insulation (RMI)
- Replaced the Reactor Coolant Pumps insulation with RMI
- Removed the calsil insulation from the Pressurizer Relief Tank
- Improved insulation and coatings controls
5 Unit 3 Alternate Approach
- Utilize the Unit 4 testing data to validate that the current Unit 3 analysis is conservative
- Different methodologies were utilized at Turkey Point
- Unit 3: GE debris head loss testing with Alion chemical effects analysis
- Unit 4: Areva integrated chemical effects testing
- Preliminary assessment concluded that the key parameters on Unit 4 bound Unit 3
6 Unit 3 Alternate Approach
- Unit 3 has approximately 50% more strainer surface area than Unit 4
- Unit 3 has significantly less fiber at the strainer
- Both units utilize Sodium Tetraborate as a buffer
- Plant parameters such as flows, pH, temp, etc. are essentially the same
- Particulate and chemical loads are comparable, thus Unit 3 has significantly less debris per square foot
- Both strainers utilize vertical plates with 3/32 holes
- Significant NPSH margin exists, especially as temperature is reduced
7 Path Forward
- Submit extension request - completed 10/31/2008
- Conduct a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis for Unit 3 and compare with the Unit 4 tested velocity profile - January 2009
- Complete critical parameters comparison evaluation between Unit 3 and Unit 4, including incorporating the CFD results - February 2009
- Meet with NRC to provide presentation of results and obtain feedback - March 2009
- Submit chemical effects response to the NRC - July 30, 2009
8 Summary
- FPL has made substantial plant improvements
- Unit 3 has minimal fiber and a relatively neutral buffer
- Significant NPSH margin is available
- High confidence that the final evaluation will demonstrate that Unit 3 analysis is conservative
9 QUESTIONS?