ML110430001
| ML110430001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| References | |
| Download: ML110430001 (5) | |
Text
1 WBN2Public Resource From:
Beissel, Dennis Sent:
Monday, January 24, 2011 11:23 AM To:
Milano, Patrick; WBN2HearingFile Resource
Subject:
FW: call summary WBN Unit 2 Attachments:
Call Record WBN_call summary1 20 11rwb_jas.doc From: Stegen, Amanda [1]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:22 PM To: Beissel, Dennis Cc: Krieg, Rebekah; Bryce, Robert W; Logan, Dennis
Subject:
call summary WBN Unit 2
Dennis-
BobputtogetheracallsummaryofourTVAcalltoday.Wedidnthaveallthenames,butgaveitashot.
Letusknowifyouneedanythingelsefromus-
Thanks
Amanda
Hearing Identifier:
Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public Email Number:
266 Mail Envelope Properties (87B1F1BDFE5A554CA9DC5EAA75EB6D0D3C5F220FED)
Subject:
FW: call summary WBN Unit 2 Sent Date:
1/24/2011 11:22:47 AM Received Date:
1/24/2011 11:22:48 AM From:
Beissel, Dennis Created By:
Dennis.Beissel@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Milano, Patrick" <Patrick.Milano@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "WBN2HearingFile Resource" <WBN2HearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 433 1/24/2011 11:22:48 AM Call Record WBN_call summary1 20 11rwb_jas.doc 89666 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Phone/Conference Call Record Project/Plant: Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 Date/time: 1/20/11 12:00 PST Attendees:
PNNL Bob Bryce Amanda Stegen Becky Krieg NRC Patrick Milano Dennis Logan Dennis Beissel Steve Campbell TVA and Bechtel Gordon Arent Bill Crouch Dan Epperson Lynn Winn Paul Hopping Rochelle ?
Kurt Peterson?
Luju?
Call title/subject: Intake pumping station intake velocity and other flow rates.
Purpose of call: Clarification on differences between intake pumping station intake velocity between application RAI responses and NPDES permit application Call notes:
Patrick Milano opened the meeting. Bob Bryce discussed the differences observed between intake and discharge flow rates provided by TVA in the application and in associated RAI responses verses the flow rates listed in the NPDES permit application submitted to the state of Tennessee in a letter dated August 17, 2010. The information provided is summarized below:
Several differences were identified between the way the cooling system is described in the EIS PNNL has prepared for NRC and the way it is described in the permit application. The values in the EIS are taken from RAIs responses that TVA supplied in February and July 2010. The RAI
references and associated MLs are listed below. The differences involve intake and discharge rates for the cooling water systems and intake velocity through the screens at the intake pumping station.
The intake and discharge rates listed in the permit for the IPS and Supplemental Condenser Cooling System are, with one exception, the same or larger than those listed in the material TVA provided to NRC that was used as the basis for the EIS. With these larger values maybe TVA is being conservative in the permit. The discharge rate for the SCCW is quite a bit less in the permit than in the EIS (230 cfs in the permit vs. 299 cfs in the EIS). The value of 299 cfs is the average of the monthly discharge rates included in Table 10 of RAI response H-14 provided on February 25, 2009. The minimum monthly flow provided in that table for operating both Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 265 cfs, the maximum is 318 cfs (TVA 2010a). Table 17 of that response indicates the minimum monthly discharge from the SCCW outfall while operating only Unit 1 would be 230 cfs, maximum monthly discharge would be 283 cfs.
The permit application states that the Calculated through screen velocity for this flow (75.024 MGD, 116 cfs) and a normal summer pool elevation of 683 is 0.464 fps. (page 4 of the permit application, italics added). The EIS indicates Normal operations would require the withdrawal of 3.29 m3/s (116 cfs) of water from the reservoir (TVA 2010a). Under normal conditions, while drawing water through all four bays in the IPS, the maximum water velocity through the openings in the traveling screens would be 0.24 m/s (0.8 ft/s) (TVA 2010c). (Statement from NRC EIS Page 3-6). This is significant because the permit application number is below the EPA guideline of 0.5 fps and the number presented in the EIS is greater than the guideline. The reference TVA 2010c is a calculation provided by TVA in a response to a request for RAI clarification on July 2, 2010.
A number of clarifying questions were asked and Paul Hopping said he understood the question. He hoped to have a response by sometime next week. Bob Bryce agreed to send a written summary of the observations to Patrick Milano so that it could be forwarded to TVA.
This document is the source of the 0.8 fps used in the EIS:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010c. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 2, 2010, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Submittal of Additional Information Requested During May 12, 2010, Request for Additional Information (RAI) Clarification Teleconference Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No.
MD8203). Accession No. ML101930470.
This document is the source of the discharge rates from the SCCW used in the EIS:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010a. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2, Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 25, 2010 in response to NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated July 2, 2008, January 27, 2009, and December 23, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100630115.