ML041470262
| ML041470262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/2004 |
| From: | Ellen Brown NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2 |
| To: | Stall J Florida Power & Light Co |
| Brown E, NRR/DLPM 415-2315 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC1717, TAC MC1718, TAC MC1719, TAC MC1720, TAC MC1721, TAC MC1722, TAC MC1723, TAC MC1724, TAC MC1725, TAC MC1726, TAC MC1727, TAC MC1728, TAC MC1729, TAC MC1730, TAC MC1733, TAC MC1734, TAC MC1735, TAC MC1736 | |
| Download: ML041470262 (4) | |
Text
May 24, 2004 Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
SUBJECT:
TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING FOURTH INTERVAL INSERVICE TEST RELIEF REQUESTS (TAC NOS. MC1717, MC1718, MC1719, MC1720, MC1721, MC1722, MC1723, MC1724, MC 1725, MC1726, MC1727, MC1728, MC1729, MC1730, MC1733, MC1734, MC1735, MC1736)
Dear Mr. Stall:
By letter dated July 8, 2002, Florida Power and Light Company requested relief from the Inservice Testing requirements specified in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code.
Based on our review of your submittal and questions generated during the October 2002 audit, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff finds that a response to the enclosed Request for Additional Information is needed before we can complete the review.
This request was discussed with your staff on May 10, 2004, and it was agreed that a response would be provided within 45 days of the issuance of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2315.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Eva A. Brown, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
Mr. J. A. Stall TURKEY POINT PLANT Florida Power and Light Company cc:
M. S. Ross, Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Marjan Mashhadi, Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004 T. O. Jones, Site Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company 9760 SW. 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 County Manager Miami-Dade County 111 NW 1 Street, 29th Floor Miami, Florida 33128 Senior Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9762 SW. 344th Street Florida City, Florida 33035 Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control 2020 Capital Circle, SE, Bin #C21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1741 Mr. Craig Fugate, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Michael O. Pearce Plant General Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company 9760 SW. 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 Walter Parker Licensing Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 9760 SW 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 David Moore, Vice President Nuclear Operations Support Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
ML041470262 NRR-106 OFFICE PDII-2/PM PDII-2/LA EMEB/SC PDII-2/SC (A)
NAME EBrown BClayton DTerao WBurton DATE 5/10/04 5/13/04 5/24/04 5/24/04
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOURTH 10-YEAR TESTING INTERVAL PUMP VALVE RELIEF REQUEST NOS. PR-01, PR-02, PR-03, PR-04, PR-05, PR-06, VR-01, VR-02, AND VR-03 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT, UNITS 3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251
- 1. Relief Request PR-03, Containment Spray (CS) Pump Comprehensive Pump Test a.
The test data provided would indicate that the preoperation pump curve is the more representative curve for pump performance. The preoperation curve (and performance curve) is relatively flat at the pump test point. The purpose of the comprehensive pump test is to test the hydraulic and mechanical condition of the pump. The miniflow test point (27.6 percent of design flow) does not appear to provide a meaningful assessment of pump health and operational performance.
From the submittal it appears that the performance curve is the minimum acceptable performance of the CS pumps to meet the accident analysis. Is this assumption correct? Describe the margin available at the design flow rate of 1450 gallons per minute and provide test results and any evaluations from the construction preoperational tests.
b.
The basis section addresses a previous modification to increase the test flow rate and establishing a full flow test loop by removing a check valve (890A/B).
Provide an estimate of the cost to perform modifications to meet American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code required testing.
c.
Describe the preventive maintenance performed on the pumps and a history of the results.
2.
Relief Request PR-04, Residual Heat Removal Discharge and Suction Pressure Gauge Range Requirements The comprehensive pump test is a stringent test with tight acceptance criteria and the Code recognizes that temporary instrumentation may be required to perform the testing.
The submittal appears to be inconsistent with the guidance of NUREG-1482, with respect to the comprehensive pump test in that the combination of range and accuracy does not yield a reading at least equivalent to the reading achieved from instruments that meet the Code requirements. If a delta-p gage was installed, the allowable range based on a normal 100 psi delta-p would require a 0-300 pounds-per-square-inch gage (psig) (maximum) and the maximum inaccuracy would be 1.5 psig. The combination of range and accuracy is twice that allowed by the ASME Code for the comprehensive pump test and combined with the stringent acceptance criteria of the comprehensive pump test does not appear to provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Please provide additional justification to support the alternative with respect to the comprehensive pump test.