ML103500496: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| document type = E-Mail | | document type = E-Mail | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Acceptance Review | |||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:From: Paige, Jason Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:00 PM To: Franzone, Steve; Tiemann, Philip | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Paige, Jason Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:00 PM To: Franzone, Steve; Tiemann, Philip | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
EMCB Acceptance Review Questions Steve, | EMCB Acceptance Review Questions | ||
: 1. In Section 2.2.1.2.3 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes that piping modifications related to the replacement of the number 5 and 6 feedwater heaters will be performed by the PTN design change process. Any impacts to existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects will be evaluated by the design change process. These statements indicate that the evaluations (design, and analysis) of piping modifications, and the impact on existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects required to support the EPU have not yet been performed. Therefore the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for | : Steve, On December 16, 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Florida Power & Light (FPL) held a teleconference to discuss the below Acceptance Review requests for additional information (RAIs). The NRC reviewer and your staff agreed on the content of the questions and reached a common understating. During the call, you stated that FPL will provide responses to these RAIs by January 7, 2011. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. | ||
: 2. Under Category Key 3 for Table 1-0.1 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), the licensee notes that new Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) methodology requires approval by the NRC prior to EPU operation. The licensee has not provided any technical details on MSLB methodology. Therefore, the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for | : 1. In Section 2.2.1.2.3 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes that piping modifications related to the replacement of the number 5 and 6 feedwater heaters will be performed by the PTN design change process. Any impacts to existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects will be evaluated by the design change process. These statements indicate that the evaluations (design, and analysis) of piping modifications, and the impact on existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects required to support the EPU have not yet been performed. Therefore the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that the integrity of the piping modifications are structurally adequate for the proposed EPU. | ||
: 3. In Section 2.5.1.3.2.3.4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes the replacement of the | : 2. Under Category Key 3 for Table 1-0.1 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), the licensee notes that new Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) methodology requires approval by the NRC prior to EPU operation. The licensee has not provided any technical details on MSLB methodology. Therefore, the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that any affected SSCs due to new MSLB methodology are adequate for the proposed EPU. | ||
: 3. In Section 2.5.1.3.2.3.4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes the replacement of the 6th feedwater heaters will result in resizing of the discharge piping from 18 inches to 24 inches. The jet impingement zones of influence are increasing due to EPU requiring modifications to shield equipment important to safety. These statements indicate that the evaluations (design, and analysis) of 24 inch discharge piping, and shield equipment required to support the EPU have not been performed yet. Therefore, the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that the integrity of the required modifications are structurally adequate for the proposed EPU. | |||
: 4. Tables 2.2.2.2-3 and 2.2.2.2-4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), provide Attributes of Concern for pipe support modifications for Component Cooling and Main steam piping systems for PTN Units 3 and 4. It is not clear from these tables whether the design and analytical details of modifications for welds, structural members, Integral welded attachments (IWA), base plate, anchor bolts, rods, U-bolts, and new snubbers are complete. The licensee is requested to clarify whether the designs for the above modifications are completed or still in progress. | : 4. Tables 2.2.2.2-3 and 2.2.2.2-4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), provide Attributes of Concern for pipe support modifications for Component Cooling and Main steam piping systems for PTN Units 3 and 4. It is not clear from these tables whether the design and analytical details of modifications for welds, structural members, Integral welded attachments (IWA), base plate, anchor bolts, rods, U-bolts, and new snubbers are complete. The licensee is requested to clarify whether the designs for the above modifications are completed or still in progress. | ||
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}} | 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}} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:24, 13 November 2019
| ML103500496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/2010 |
| From: | Jason Paige Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Franzone S, Tiemann P Florida Power & Light Co |
| Paige, Jason C, NRR/DORL,301-415-5888 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML103500496 (1) | |
Text
From: Paige, Jason Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:00 PM To: Franzone, Steve; Tiemann, Philip
Subject:
EMCB Acceptance Review Questions
- Steve, On December 16, 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Florida Power & Light (FPL) held a teleconference to discuss the below Acceptance Review requests for additional information (RAIs). The NRC reviewer and your staff agreed on the content of the questions and reached a common understating. During the call, you stated that FPL will provide responses to these RAIs by January 7, 2011. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
- 1. In Section 2.2.1.2.3 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes that piping modifications related to the replacement of the number 5 and 6 feedwater heaters will be performed by the PTN design change process. Any impacts to existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects will be evaluated by the design change process. These statements indicate that the evaluations (design, and analysis) of piping modifications, and the impact on existing pipe rupture locations and associated dynamic effects required to support the EPU have not yet been performed. Therefore the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that the integrity of the piping modifications are structurally adequate for the proposed EPU.
- 2. Under Category Key 3 for Table 1-0.1 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), the licensee notes that new Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) methodology requires approval by the NRC prior to EPU operation. The licensee has not provided any technical details on MSLB methodology. Therefore, the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that any affected SSCs due to new MSLB methodology are adequate for the proposed EPU.
- 3. In Section 2.5.1.3.2.3.4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report) the licensee notes the replacement of the 6th feedwater heaters will result in resizing of the discharge piping from 18 inches to 24 inches. The jet impingement zones of influence are increasing due to EPU requiring modifications to shield equipment important to safety. These statements indicate that the evaluations (design, and analysis) of 24 inch discharge piping, and shield equipment required to support the EPU have not been performed yet. Therefore, the licensee has not provided sufficient technical information for staffs review to determine whether reasonable assurance exists to conclude that the integrity of the required modifications are structurally adequate for the proposed EPU.
- 4. Tables 2.2.2.2-3 and 2.2.2.2-4 (Attachment 4, Licensing Report), provide Attributes of Concern for pipe support modifications for Component Cooling and Main steam piping systems for PTN Units 3 and 4. It is not clear from these tables whether the design and analytical details of modifications for welds, structural members, Integral welded attachments (IWA), base plate, anchor bolts, rods, U-bolts, and new snubbers are complete. The licensee is requested to clarify whether the designs for the above modifications are completed or still in progress.
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