ML102360041
| ML102360041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/2010 |
| From: | Price J Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO) |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 10-483 | |
| Download: ML102360041 (5) | |
Text
10 CFR 50.55a VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 August 19, 2010 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No.10-483 Attention: Document Control Desk NL&OS/ETS RO Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-338/339 License Nos. NPF-4/7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (DOMINION)
NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 FOURTH INTERVAL INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM PLAN PUMP RELIEF REQUEST P-6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In a letter dated November 24, 2009 (Serial No.09-715), Dominion submitted the Fourth Interval Inservice Testing (IST) Program Plan for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and
- 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(ii), the IST programs were updated to comply with the ASME Code for Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 2004 Edition. The submitted plan describes the programmatic aspects of the IST program and includes associated proposed alternatives and relief requests for the fourth interval.
In an August 10, 2010 telephone call, the NRC staff requested additional information to complete their review of pump relief request P-6. The attachment to this letter provides the information requested in the phone call.
The fourth IST interval will begin on December 15, 2010 and North Anna Units 1 and 2 will begin implementation of the plans on that date. Therefore, Dominion continues to request review and approval of the fourth interval plan, including proposed alternatives and relief requests, by December 1, 2010.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Thomas Shaub at (804) 273-2763.
Respectfully, J.
an rice Vid,4, sident - Nuclear Engineering 0ýrmitments made in this letter: None Attachment Response to Request for Additional Information - Pump Relief P-6
Serial No.10-483 Docket Nos. 50-338/339 RAI - Pump Relief P-6 Page 2 of 2 cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue, NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. J. E. Reasor, Jr.
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Innsbrook Corporate Center 4201 Dominion Blvd.
Suite 300 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station Ms. K. R. Cotton NRC Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Mail Stop 0-8 G9A 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dr. V. Sreenivas NRC Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Mail Stop 0-8 G9A 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
Serial No.10-483 Docket Nos. 50-338/339 RAI - Pump Relief P-6 Attachment RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - PUMP RELIEF P-6 North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion)
Serial No.10-483 Docket Nos. 50-338/339 RAI - Pump Relief P-6 Page 1 of 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - PUMP RELIEF P-6
Background
In a letter dated November 24, 2010 (Serial No.09-715), Dominion submitted the Fourth Interval Inservice Testing (IST) Program Plan for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and
- 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(ii), the IST programs were updated to comply with the ASME Code for Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 2004 Edition. The submitted plan describes the programmatic aspects of the IST program and includes associated proposed alternatives and relief requests for the fourth interval.
In an August 10, 2010 telephone call, the NRC staff requested additional information to complete their review of pump relief request P-6. The response to the RAI is provided below.
NRC Questions NRC Question 1 Relief request P-6, Section 5.0, Proposed Alternative and Bases for use, ISTB-3300(e)(1), last paragraph, states "Using the provision of this relief request as an alternative to the specific requirements of Table ISTB-3300-1, and Table ISTB-3400-1 identified above, which have been indentified to be impractical, will provide adequate indication of pump performance." Please explain how Table ISTB-3300-1 and Table ISTB-3400-1 are related to the submitted relief request, because these are not discussed in the entire relief request.
Dominion Response Reference to Table ISTB-3300-1 and Table ISTB-3400-1 is incorrect. The sentence should have read "Using the provision of this relief request asan alternative to the specific requirements of ISTB-3300(e)(1) identified above, which has been indentified to be impractical, will provide adequate indication of pump performance." Please use the corrected reference to complete the review.
NRC Question 2 Please confirm that for relief request P-6, North Anna Units 1 and 2 have similar system configuration and pump flow performance figures (curves), because North Anna Units 1 and 2 are using the same figure (curves) number for their relief requests.
NRC staff believes that during third interval IST program, North Anna Unit 1 and Unit 2 provided different flow performance figures. Therefore, please explain why relief requests curves are the same for Unit I and Unit 2 for fourth interval IST.
Serial No.10-483 Docket Nos. 50-338/339 RAI - Pump Relief P-6 Page 2 of 2 Dominion Response North Anna Units 1 and 2 have similar test loop system configurations for the outside recirculation spray pumps. Test data has shown that the North Anna Units 1 and 2 pumps have similar performance characteristics.
During plant construction in the early 1970s, only one original vendor curve was supplied for all four outside recirculation spray pumps (Unit 1 pumps 1-RS-P-2A and 1-RS-P-2B and for Unit 2 pumps 2-RS-P-2A and 2-RS-P-2B). Figure P-6.2 in Relief Request P-6 for the North Anna Unit 1 IST Program Plan and Figure P-6.2 in Relief Request P-6 for the Unit 2 IST Program Plan use the same original vendor curve to illustrate that the slope of the pump curve near the test points is well sloped and that the tests will provide measurable differences in pump performance due to degradation. The Interval 3 relief requests used the same original vendor curve that that has been submitted for Interval 4 for both Units 1 and 2 outside recirculation spray pumps.