ML101480750

Follow-up Request for Additional Information Re Turkey, Unit 3 and 4 AST LAR

ML101480750
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	05/28/2010
From:	Jason Paige Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Franzone S Florida Power & Light Co
Paige, Jason C, NRR/DORL,301-415-5888
References
Download: ML101480750 (3)

Text

From: Paige, Jason Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:43 AM To: Franzone, Steve Cc: Tiemann, Philip

Subject:

Follow-up Requests for Additional Information RE Turkey Point, Unit 3 and 4 AST LAR Steve, below are the RAI questions the NRC staff discussed with your staff on May 12, 2010. At the conclusion of the call, there was a common understating regarding the questions between the NRC and FPL, and FPL stated that they would provide the responses to the questions no later than mid-July 2010.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

The following questions concern the April 14, 2010 response (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML101090027) from Florida Power and Light Company (FPL, the licensee) to an NRC request for additional information. The questions are related to the overall quality, derivation, and measurement history and processing of the meteorological data used to generate atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q values) in support of the Turkey Point alternative source term license amendment request (LAR) (ADAMS Accession Number ML092050277). NRC staff is attempting to understand the bases for the licensees selection of data to ensure that suitable high quality data were used in the assessments.

1. Provide a detailed description of the technical review of the 2003 through 2007 hourly meteorological data. What was the process and what specific criteria were used to determine the validity of the data? At what time intervals and at what levels of expertise were each review performed?

2. Were sigma theta wind measurements used to determine the atmospheric stability category for any of the data used in the ARCON96 or PAVAN computer assessments?

3. Page 12 of the enclosure to the April 14, 2010 response states that in some cases, substitutions were made when there was a considerable amount of invalid data from the primary measurement trains. Were substitutions made for infrequent random occurrences of a few hours duration? Does the discussion at the top of page 13 summarize all of the substitutions? Were the temperature difference data in the computer input files for 2003, the second half of 2004, the second half of 2005, the last three quarters of 2006, and 2007, other than August through October, inclusive, essentially all measured only on the primary tower?

4. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, states that vertical temperature difference accuracy should be within +/-0.1 °C (+/-0.18 °F).

Were each pair of temperature sensors used to make measurements of temperature

difference as a function of height calibrated jointly as a pair? This would include pairing of one temperature sensor with another temperature sensor of another pair, if one sensor of a set pair was unavailable.

5. With regard to the discussion on page 13, provide further clarification of the bases for the differences in the reported hourly atmospheric stability categories when comparing the 2005 through 2006 data provided in support of the current LAR and the data that were provided for the Turkey Point combined operating license application (COLA). Why are the atmospheric stability categories provided in support of the current LAR more appropriate for use in the current LAR than the atmospheric stability categories in the Turkey Point COLA data base?

6. NRC staff notes that there appears to be several lengthy cases when data from the primary measurement system were either flagged as invalid or NRC judges that the data appear to be anomalous. What corrective actions were implemented to upgrade the meteorological measurement program to ensure that problems were promptly identified and fixed to minimize the occurrence of subsequent problems? At what intervals were calibrations performed for each instrument train? Were calibration findings used in any way to modify or determine the validity of data collected since the prior calibration? Were meteorological data measurements at the Turkey Point site either prior to 2003 or after 2007 made primarily on the primary tower with few data substitutions, particularly with regard to use of instruments jointly paired in either Train A or Train B of the temperature difference measurements?

Jason Paige, Turkey Point 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:

Follow-up Requests for Additional Information RE Turkey Point, Unit 3 and 4 AST LAR Sent Date: 5/28/2010 10:12:43 AM Received Date: 5/28/2010 10:43:00 AM From: Paige, Jason Created By: Jason.Paige@nrc.gov

Recipients:

Steve.Franzone@fpl.com (Franzone, Steve)

Tracking Status: None Philip.Tiemann@fpl.com (Tiemann, Philip)

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 15991 5/28/2010 Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: