ML110610719
| ML110610719 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/2011 |
| From: | Jason Paige Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Abbatiello T Florida Power & Light Co |
| Paige, Jason C, NRR/DORL,301-415-5888 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML110610719 (3) | |
Text
From: Paige, Jason Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:44 PM To: Abbatiello, Tom Cc: Hoffman, Jack; Abbott, Liz; Tiemann, Philip; Tomonto, Bob
Subject:
Turkey Point EPU - Electrical Engineering (EEEB) Request for Additional Information - Round 1
- Tom, Below are requests for additional information (RAIs) regarding the Turkey Point Extended Power Uprate license amendment request. On March 2, 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) discussed draft RAIs to gain a common understanding of the questions. During the call, it was concluded that questions EEEB-1.1c, EEE-1.1d, and EEEB-1.5 needed clarification. RAI EEEB-1.5 referenced NUREG-1779 due to FPLs October 21, 2010, application stating NUREG-1779 but during the call, it was concluded that the correct designation is NUREG-1759. The below RAIs reflect the questions discussed during the March 2, 2011, call. FPL agreed upon providing its responses within 30 days of the date of this email. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
EEEB-1.1 Regarding Section 2.3.1.2.3.1 of Attachment 4 of the license amendment request (LAR) dated October 21, 2010:
- a. Explain the basis for the following statement: Pressure effects are generally stress-related rather than age related.
- b. Explain how the margins identified in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 323-1974 (i.e., Temperature, Pressure, etc.) are being maintained under EPU conditions.
- c. Figure 2.3.1-1 appears to show that the required temperature margin (15 degrees Fahrenheit) is not being maintained. Clarify the apparent deviation.
- d. The licensee stated that while some EPU pressure points well after the peak EPU pressure slightly exceed EPU pressure envelope, the integrated EPU pressure curve remains below the current environmental qualification (EQ) envelope during the Post Accident Operability Time (PAOT) period of 31 days. Provide the integrated EPU pressure curve.
- e. The licensee stated that following EPU, the containment submergence level or containment flood elevation has changed. The EPU maximum containment sump temperature is 4 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the current maximum due to thermal power increase. The licensee concluded that there is no impact on the EQ population or qualification of existing EQ equipment based on its review. Provide a summary of the evaluation used to determine that there would be no impact on the EQ population or qualification of existing EQ equipment.
EEEB-1.2 In Section 2.3.1.2.3.2 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, the licensee stated that any Containment EQ equipment that could not meet new EPU bounding radiation dose level was assessed for dose reduction. Factors included consideration if a
component was sealed, equipment shielding, and the actual distance from the radiation source.
Provide a list of equipment which could not meet the new EPU bounding radiation dose level and a brief summary of dose reduction factor(s) considered for each component including any planned modifications that show that the resulting radiation dose will remain below the existing EQ level.
EEEB-1.3 Regarding Section 2.3.1.2.3.3 of Attachment 4 of the LAR:
- a. The licensee stated that normal operating gamma radiation dose in the Aux Building has increased in some EQ Zones due to the EPU. However, the EPU dose estimates in the worst case EQ zone has not changed and remains at 5.26E+04 Rads. Provide a summary of the evaluation of equipment that shows how the EQ of all equipment remains bounding for normal operating EPU conditions.
- b. The licensee stated that EPU accident gamma radiation dose in the Auxiliary Building has increased in the worse case EQ Zone from 7.50E+06 to 1.1E+07 Rads. Some mild areas have become harsh due to dose increases from EPU.
- i. Provide a summary of the evaluation of equipment that shows how the EQ of all equipment remains bounding for accident EPU conditions.
ii. Provide a list of equipment that is being added to the master EQ list as a result of the new areas being designated as Harsh.
iii. Show how the newly added equipment meets EQ requirements under EPU conditions, and has been maintained as EQ during its installed life.
EEEB-1.4 In Section 2.3.1.2.3.4 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, the licensee stated that any Auxiliary Building EQ equipment that could not meet new EPU bounding radiation dose level was assessed for dose reduction. Factors included consideration for equipment shielding, and the actual distance from the radiation source.
Provide a list of equipment which could not meet the new EPU bounding radiation dose level and a brief summary of dose reduction factor(s) considered for each component including any planned modifications that shows that the resulting radiation dose will remain below the existing EQ level.
EEEB-1.5 In Section 2.3.1.2.4 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, the licensee stated that with respect to the license renewal described in NUREG-1779 [NUREG-1759], EPU activities do not add any new components, any new or previously unevaluated materials, nor introduce any new functions for existing components that would change the license renewal system evaluation boundaries.
Provide a summary of the evaluation that provides verification of above statement.
EEEB-1.6 Explain why a maximum of 889 Megawatts Electric (MWe) generation of each unit was considered in the System Impact Study while the maximum main generator output is mentioned to be 899.8 MWe in Section 2.3.3.2.3 of Attachment 4 of LAR.
EEEB-1.7 Regarding Section 2.3.3.2.3 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide the existing and revised current transformer ratings of main generator.
EEEB-1.8 Regarding Section 2.3.3.2.3 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide a summary of any major changes required to the main generator and main transformer protection, such as replacement of relays, as a result of the proposed EPU.
EEEB-1.9 On page 2.3.3-7 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, the licensee stated that loads that will increase as a result of the proposed EPU include the heater drain pump, the intake cooling water pump, and the circulating water pump motors. However, no specific increase in loads for these pump motors is indicated in Table 2.3.3-15.
Explain the apparent discrepancy.
EEEB-1.10 Regarding Page 2.3.3-7 and 2.3.3-8 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide the technical rationale for determining that it is acceptable for the maximum momentary short circuit currents exceeding the switchgear bus rating at 4.16 kV Buses 3AA1 and 3AB1 for existing conditions and at Buses 4AA1 and 4AB1 (Table 2.3.3-10) for both existing and under EPU conditions.
EEEB-1.11 Regarding Page 2.3.3-10 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide a summary of calculations that shows that the degraded voltage relay and undervoltage relay settings at the 480 Volt load center buses are not adversely affected by operation under EPU conditions.
EEEB-1.12 Regarding Page 2.3.3-11 and 2.3.3.-12 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide a summary of calculations that shows that emergency diesel generator (EDG) loading in the post-EPU state, after taking into account new loads and the loading on the 120 V alternating current vital (safety-related) instrument power systems, will remain within each EDGs capacity, even after taking into account EDG operation at extreme limits of revised frequency and voltage.
EEEB-1.13 Regarding Page 2.3.4-3 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, the licensee stated that both the safety related and non-safety related portions of the 125 V DC systems were evaluated to determine potential impacts due to EPU. The five non safety-related modifications discussed on Page 2.3.4-2 will have a small impact on the DC Power System. The current unused system capacity associated with the batteries and chargers is sufficient to accommodate the impact of these additional EPU loads on the DC Power System.
Provide a comparison of the existing loads to the EPU loads and the design rating for each safety related and non-safety related battery at Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4.
EEEB-1.14 Regarding Page 2.3.5-4 of Attachment 4 of the LAR, provide a summary of EDG station blackout (SBO) loads, with one unit in SBO and the other unit
experiencing loss of offsite power event, for both existing and under EPU conditions.
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