ML17229A814
| ML17229A814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1998 |
| From: | Gleaves W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Plunkett T FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| GL-96-06, GL-96-6, TAC-MA0047, TAC-MA0048, TAC-MA47, TAC-MA48, NUDOCS 9807310331 | |
| Download: ML17229A814 (5) | |
Text
Mr.T. F. Plunkett President - Nuclear Divis~
Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 July 28, 1998
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION-ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MA0047 AND MA0048)
Dear Mr. Plunkett:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, "Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," on September 30, 1996. The GL included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions.
By letters dated January 28, and April 22, 1997, Florida Power 8 Light submitted its responses for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The NRC staff has reviewed your response and has determined that additional information is necessary.
The enclosed request for additional information (RAI) has been discussed with George Madden of your staff. A target date for your response has been agreed upon to be September 30, 1998. Should a situation occur which prevents you from meeting the due date, please contact me at (301) 415-1479.
Sincerely, Original signed by William C. Gleaves; Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335 50-389
Enclosure:
RAI AAIL mplcl NOtL hO OO tQ trr O'O P)O P)D OQ l9 OIL I@I Y 0 ILtL c(+/
OFFICE NAME PM:PD2-3 E
LA:PD2-3 E
%~aves
(@55 BClayto SPLB:NRR LMarsh*
PD:PD2-3 E
FHebdon cc w/enclosure:
See next page
~la I UT N'.
Docket File W. Gleaves L. Marsh PUBLIC B. Clayton St Lucie R/F G. Hubbard J. Zwolinski J. Tatum F. Hebdon B. Wetzel C. Casto, Rll ACRS OGC L. Plisco, Rll DOCUMENT NAME: G: tSTLUCIE<M96870.RAI To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Cop without endosures "E" = Cop with enciosures "N"= No DATE 7/2898 7/g/98 7/1 5/98 7/g~/98
- See previous concurrence OFFICIALRECORD COPY
Mr. T. F. Plunkett Florida Power and Light Company ST. LUCIE PLANT CC:
Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 6090 Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Joe Myers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-21 00 M. S. Ross, Attorney Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 John T. Butler, Esquire Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Mr. Douglas Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Mr. WilliamA. Passetti, Chief Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control 2020 Capital Circle, SE, Bin ¹C21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1741 Regional Administrator Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 J. A. Stall, Site Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. J. Scarola Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. Robert P. Schin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 E. J. Weinkam Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. John Gianfrancesco Manager, Administrative Support and Special Projects Florida Power & Light Company P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Florida Power & Light Company P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONREGARDING GENERIC LETTER 96C6, "ASSURANCE OF EQUIPMENT OPERABILITYAND CONTAINMENT INTEGRITYDURING DESIGN-BASIS ACCIDENTCONDITIONS" ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M96870 AND M96871) 1.0 Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, "Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30, 1996, included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions.
Florida Power and Light Company (the licerisee) provided its assessment of the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues for St. Lucie 1 and 2 in letters dated January 28 and April22, 1997. The component cooling water (CCW) system provides cooling water for the containment fan coolers (CFCs) at St. Lucie, and the licensee has determined that waterhammer and two-phase flowwill not occur in the CCW system during the accident scenarios described in GL 96-06.
In order to assess the licensee's resolution of these issues, the following additional information is requested:
Note:
Information that has been submitted previously may be referred to and supplemented as necessary to provide a complete response to the staffs questions.
2.1 Provide a detailed description of the "worst case" scenarios forwaterhammer and two-phase flow, taking into consideration the complete range of event possibilities, system configurations, and parameters.
For example, the worst-case temperatures, pressures, flow rates, load combinations, and component failures should be considered.
Describe how much margin to boiling willexist for these scenarios.
2.2 Describe and justify all assumptions and input parameters (including those used in any computer codes) that were used in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses.
Confirm that these assumptions and input parameters are consistent with the existing design and licensing basis of the plant. Allexceptions should be explained and justified.
2.3 Confirm that the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses included a complete failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for all components (including electrical and pneumatic failures) that could impact performance of the cooling water system and confirm that the FMEA is documented and available for review, or explain why a complete and fullydocumented FMEA was not performed.
For example, failure of a CCW pump to start, or a delayed start of a CCW pump, could have a significant impact on the analyses that have been completed.
2.4 Determine the uncertainty in the analyses that have been performed, explain how the uncertainty was determined, and how it was accounted for in the analyses to assure conservative results.
Also, describe the conservatisms that have been relaxed in the CFC model and explain why conservative results are still assured.
2.5 Discuss specific system operating parameters and other operating restrictions that must be maintained to assure that the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses remain valid (e.g., surge tank level, pre'ssure, temperature), and explain why it would not be appropriate to establish Technical Specification requirements to acknowledge the importance of these parameters and operating restrictions.
Also, describe and justify use of any non-safety related instrumentation and controls for maintaining these parameters.
-2.6 Implementing measures to assure that waterhammer willnot occur, such as maintaining a minimum required surge tank level to prevent boiling, is an acceptable approach for addressing the waterhammer concern.
However, all applicable scenarios must be considered to assure that the vulnerability to waterhammer and two-phase flow has been eliminated.
Confirm that the measures that exist or that have been established to prevent the occurrence of waterhammer and two-phase flow are adequate for all applicable accident scenarios.
2.7 Explain and justify all uses of "engineering judgment" that were credited in the analyses.
2.8 Provide a simplified diagram of the system, showing major components, active components, relative elevations, lengths of piping runs, and the location of any orifices and flow restrictions.
2.9 Describe in detail any plant modifications or procedure changes that have been made or are planned to be made to resolve the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues.