ML100351459
| ML100351459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/2009 |
| From: | Jason Paige Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Hanek O, Tomonto B Florida Power & Light Co |
| paige, Jason, NRR/DORL,301-415-5888 | |
| References | |
| GL-04-002 | |
| Download: ML100351459 (2) | |
Text
From:
Paige, Jason Sent:
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:20 PM To:
Tomonto, Bob; Olga_Hanek@fpl.com
Subject:
Draft RAIs for Unit 4, 11 and 21 RE GL 2004-02 Bob, From the August 6th teleconference the staff stated that they would provide draft RAIs for numbers 11 and 21 for Unit 4 regarding GL 2004 for clarification. Please inform me if you need to setup a call to discuss before I issue the RAIs formally. If no call is needed, FPL should be prepared to discuss the status of the two RAIs during the September 2nd follow-up call.
- 11. The supplemental response did not provide sufficient information concerning the debris interceptors to justify the credit apparently assumed for fibrous debris capture at the interceptors. Please provide the following information concerning the debris interceptors:
- a. The assumed capture efficiency for fibrous debris.
- b. The interceptor screen perforation size.
- c. The interceptor height.
- d. The dimensions of the interceptor roof.
- e. The total surface area of the interceptors.
- f. The characteristic size and size distribution of all debris used for the testing of the interceptors.
- g. A summary of any analysis done to assess debris floatation over the interceptors.
- h. A description of any flowpaths by which fluid in the containment pool inside the bioshield may bypass the debris interceptors.
- i.
A summary of any scaling that was done to apply interceptor test results to plant conditions.
- j.
A description of the test facility, test configuration, and the tests that were performed to determine the amount of fiber captured at each debris interceptor.
- k. A justification for not including particulate debris in the interceptor testing, since its inclusion could result in increased flow restriction at the interceptors, leading to greater flow over the tops of the interceptors, consequently increasing downstream transport.
- l.
A comparison of the range of velocity and turbulence conditions used for the debris interceptor testing to the computational fluid dynamics calculation for the plant condition and the technical basis for the flow conditions used for the testing.
- m. A discussion of the flume width and water level used for flume testing and whether these parameters are representative or conservative with respect to the analogous parameters for Turkey Point.
- n. A description of whether a case considering total blockage at the debris interceptors was considered in the test matrix.
- o. A description of how far in front of the debris interceptor the debris was added to the test flume and a technical basis.
- p. A description of how the debris interceptors were modeled in the plant CFD simulations.
- q. A description of the debris preparation process used to ensure representative sizes and lack of debris agglomeration.
- r. A discussion of whether eroded fines would be released from the debris trapped on the interceptors over time.
- s. A description of the methodology for determining the differential pressure across the interceptors to ensure their structural adequacy and the results of the evaluation.
- 21. Provide an evaluation of deaeration of the sump fluid as it passes through the debris bed. If deaeration is predicted, perform an evaluation of NPSHR for the affected pumps as described in Regulatory Guide 1.82, Rev 3, Appendix A.
Jason Paige, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: (301) 415-5888 E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties ()
Subject:
Draft RAIs for Unit 4, 11 and 21 RE GL 2004-02 Sent Date: 8/25/2009 2:08:46 PM Received Date: 8/25/2009 2:20:00 PM From: Paige, Jason Created By: Jason.Paige@nrc.gov Recipients:
Bob_Tomonto@fpl.com (Tomonto, Bob)
Tracking Status: None Olga_Hanek@fpl.com (Olga_Hanek@fpl.com)
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 13702 8/25/2009 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False
Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: