ML101481053
| ML101481053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/2010 |
| From: | Justin Poole Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Jim Costedio, Hale S Point Beach |
| POOLE, J | |
| References | |
| Download: ML101481053 (3) | |
Text
From:
Poole, Justin Sent:
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:34 AM To:
Hale, Steve; COSTEDIO, JAMES
Subject:
Draft - Request for Additional Information from Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch RE: AFW
- Steve, By letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated April 7, 2009, as supplemented by two letters dated June 17, and September 25, 2009, FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, submitted a request to change technical specifications due to modifications to the auxiliary feedwater system (AFW). This was originally part of the extended power uprate request, but was separated out by the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided and determined that in order to complete its evaluation, additional information is required. We would like to discuss the questions, in draft form below, with you during the public meeting on 5/27/2010.
This e-mail aims solely to prepare you and others for the proposed conference call. It does not convey a formal NRC staff position, and it does not formally request for additional information.
Justin C. Poole Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPL3-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301)415-2048 email: Justin.Poole@nrc.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DRAFT EMCB AFW RAI 1-1 NextEras response did not answer EMCB RAI 1.
a) Please identify the original codes of construction for the AFW pipe stress analyses and pipe support design and any codes that have been found acceptable to use through code reconciliation and are included in the current design basis as codes of record.
b) Please identify the codes utilized in qualifying the structural integrity of piping and pipe supports for the AFW modifications and whether the evaluations have been performed at CLTP or EPU conditions. If different from the plant design basis codes of record, provide an acceptable justification by reconciling these codes to the original codes of construction.
EMCB AFW RAI 2-1 RAI 2 requested the following:
Provide loadings and load combinations used for the AFW piping design and analysis, which include seismic and fluid transient loads, and a quantitative summary of the maximum pipe stresses and fatigue usage factors with a comparison to code of record allowable stresses which shows that the acceptance criteria have been met for EPU conditions. Include data at critical locations. For equipment nozzles provide a summary of loads compared to specific allowable values.
NextEras response in part answers EMCB RAI 2.
a) Please provide the ASME code year that was mentioned in the response.
b) Please explain why fluid transient loads have not been mentioned in the response and provide a technical justification why water hammer can not occur in the AFW system, if that is the case.
c) Specify whether the calculated forces, moments and stresses shown in the response are due to CLTP loading conditions or EPU. If due to EPU, provide an explanation which shows quantitatively how the EPU piping loads changed from CLTP.
d) Clarify the statement made in the response that The nozzle loads for the turbine-driven AFW pumps are not changing by indicating whether the nozzle loads are for CLTP or EPU.
In the November 21st (first) RAI response, the following statement is made:
The following nozzle loads are used in the qualification of the new MDAFW pumps. These loads are used to evaluate the results of the ongoing piping system qualification analyses. Additional supports may be added or vendor requalification of the nozzles for the calculated loads may be performed, if required. The support addition or nozzle requalification will be completed prior to commissioning of the new MDAFW pumping system. The summary of loads compared to specific allowable values for the nozzles will be provided by January 8, 2010.
e) Please verify that all AFW system pipe design, pipe evaluations and pipe support designs have been completed and meet the design basis code of record requirements for piping structural integrity and pipe support design. Also specify whether the evaluations are for CLTP or EPU loads.
In the January 8 (second) RAI response, it is indicated that the pump vendor has preliminarily indicated that bounding pipe to pump loads produce pump stresses [that] are within Code allowable values. Confirmation that the loads are within Code allowable values will be confirmed by final calculations.
f) Please indicate whether these loads supplied to vendor are suction and discharge bounding loads and whether the vendor is using them on both sides (suction and discharge) for pump casing and support evaluation/qualification.
g) Please specify the code name, code section and code year. If different than the design basis code of record, provide a technical justification for its acceptance. which reconciles the differences.
h) Please complete the response to this RAI when the final calculations have been completed. Until then this RAI will remain an open item.
EMCB AFW RAI 3-1 (see also RAI 2-1.e)
The response to RAI 3 states that Piping and pipe supports affected by modifications to the AFW system have been evaluated and remain structurally adequate for the current design.
Please clarify what is meant by the term current design.
EMCB AFW RAI 4-1 The response to RAI 4 identified that the only lines in the AFW system that meet the current licensing basis (LB) high energy (HE) line definition criteria are steam supply lines from the main steam system up to the normally closed TDAFW pump steam supply motor-operated valves.
The RAI response stated that HE line break (HELB) analyses have been completed for these lines and have demonstrated acceptable response to a HELB event.
a) Please discuss whether the pipe failure postulation and HELB analyses for these lines are in accordance with the current license conditions and whether they are affected by the stations HELB reconstitution stated in UFSAR 2007, Appendix A.2. Not approved yet.
Approval has been sought with the EPU. If that is the case AFW will have to wait for the EPU.
b) The response did not include the section of AFW system from its feed water (FW) connection to the check valves. Some of these lines are new AFW lines. Please provide a summary evaluation of the pipe failure postulation and HELB analyses for these lines in accordance with the current license conditions and indicated where the EPU will have an effect on the HELB of these lines. Also discuss whether the stations HELB reconstitution affects these lines.
DRAFT