ML20198S392

Forwards Request for Addl Info on Resolution of USI A-46 for North Anna Power Station,Units 1 & 2

ML20198S392
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	01/06/1999
From:	Kalyanam N NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR TAC-M69462, NUDOCS 9901110300
Download: ML20198S392 (5)

Text

_

January 6, 1999 3

Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Virginia Electric and Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46, (USl A-46)- NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69462 AND M69463)

Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:

By letter dated May 27,1997, Virginia Electric and Power Company forwarded the plant-specific summ.ary report in response to USl A-46 program at the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2. The NRC technical staff has reviewed the report and had a conference call on Decerriber 22, 1998, with your staff, and determined that additional information is necessary to complete the review of your USl A-46 program.

The enclosed request was discussed with Mr. T. Shaub of your staff on January 5,1999. A mutually agreeable target date of April 1,1999, for your response was established. If circumstances result in the need to revise the target date, please call me at the earliest opportunity, at (301)-4151480.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

N. Kalyanam, Project Manager Project Directorate ll-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File OGC PUBLIC L. Plisco, R ll ACRS J. Zwolinski p r c', [" P' - - - - - * '~ '"]

"~~ ~

R. H. Wessman Cheng-lh Wu i.*

FILENAME - G:\\NOANNA\\69462LTR.WPD

\\

OFFICE PM:PDll-2 LA:PDil-2 D:PDil-g NKalyanam M EDunningtor8/h HNBkw/

NAME k / h/99

/ / 6 /99 1/ 6 /99

,\\ b DATE I

kNo Mo Yes/No' COPY w ma 9901110300 990106 PDR ADOCK 05000338 P

pop

t pwn o

i UNITED STATES j

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

o 2

WASHINCTON, D.C. 20066-0001 January 6, 1999 Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Virginia Electric and Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 l

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION C'c UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46,(USl A-46)- NORTH ANNA POWER l

- STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69462 AND M69463) f

Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:

I By letter dated May 27,1997, Virginia Electric and Power Company forwarded the plant-specific summary report in response to USI A-46 program at the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2. The NRC technical staff has reviewed the report and had a conference call on December 22, 1998, with your staff, and determined that additional information is necessary to complete the i

review of your USl A-46 program.

The enclosed request was discussed with Mr. T. Shaub of your staff on January 5,1999. A mutually agreeable target date of April 1,1999, for your response was established. if circumstances result in the need to revise the target date, please call me at the earliest opportunity, at (301)-4151480.

Sincerely, r

N. Kalyanam, Project Manager Project Directorate Il-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information f

cc w/ enclosure:

y,. ga See next page l

l l

l

j.

s, Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon North Anna Power Station Virginia Electric & Power Company Units 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. J. Jeffrey Lunsford Regional Administrator, Region ll County Administrator -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Louisa County '

Atlanta Federal Center 1

P.O. Box 160 -

61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Louisa, Virginia 23093 Atlanta, Georgia 30103 t

Mr. Donald P. Irwin, Esquire Mr. W. R. Matthews Hunton and Williams' Site Vice President Riverfront Plaza, East Tower North Anna Power Station

~

951 E. Byrd Street P. O. Box 402 b

Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mineral, Virginia 23117 r

Dr. W. T. Lough Mr. R. C. Haag Virginia State Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Atlanta Federal Center Division of Energy Regulation 61 Forsyth St., SW, Fuite 23T85 P. O. Box 1197 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Mr. E; S. Grecheck Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Site Vice President 4201 Dominion Blvd.

Surry Power Station Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Virginia Electric and Power Company 5570 Hog Island Road Mr. J. H. McCarthy, Manager Surry, Virginia 23883 -

Nuclear Licensing & Operations

. Support Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H..

Virginia Electric and Power Company State Health Commissioner Innsbrook Technical Center Office of the Commissioner 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Virginia Department of Health Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 P.O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Senior Resident inspector __._...

3-North Anna Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1024 Haley Drive Mineral, Virginia 23117

~

~

1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NORTH ANNA STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 USl A-46

Reference:

Virginia Electric and Power Company letter (and attachments) to USNRC, " North Anna Station Units 1 and 2, Summary Report for Resolution of USI A-46," May 27, 1997.

1.

With respect to the r 11parison of equipment seismic capacity and seismic demand, g

where Method A in Table 4-1 of GlP-2 was used, and the in-structure response spectra exceed 1.5 x Bounding Spectrum, identify the components involved, their locations, and the percentage of spectrum acceleration exceedence for these components. Also, provide a technicaljustification for the acceptability of using Method A for comparing the seismic capacity vs. demand in these situations.

2.

Resumes and training records of seismic capacity engineers, lead relay reviewers, and independent reviewers are provided in Appendix E of tha referenced submittal. Provide a summary description of background and qualifications for Messrs. P. Hayes, D. Jacobs and D. Werder, who contributed to the development of Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL).

3.

In Appendix D of the referenced report, the discussion on equipment that did not meet the specific wording of the caveat, but were judged to meet the intent of the caveat, was not sufficiently detailed to enable our understanding of the basis of such a determination.

For equipment items that met the intent but not the wording of the caveats, provide a brief description regarding the nature of the deviation and how the intent of the caveat

^

~

was met in each case.

4.

On page 6-4, Section 6.5, " Seismic interaction" of the referenced report, you stated that seismic interaction concerns that were not easily corrected were identified on the CEWS and were reviewed further. You also stated that several of these concerns were subsequently resolved by plant modification. Provide five examples of the significant interactions identified during the walkdown and discuss how these interaction concerns were resolved.

5.

In reference to Section 8.2.1 of the referenced report, for raceways and cable trays that are outside of the experience data, explain what criteria were used to establish their seismic adequacy, and provide a sample of such configurations.

6.

In reference to Section 8.3.3 of the referenced report, provide a sample of the calculations for the limited analytical reviews (LAR) with drawings or sketches for examples 1,6,10,11,13 and 14.

Enclosure

2 7.

You discussed seismic spatialinteraction on page 8-4. You stated that the seismic interactior,s were verified during the walkdown. Provide a quantitative discussion as to how you eutimated or calculated cable tray and support displacements (sway) during an earthquake, especially for a long support hung at the ceiling.

8.

In Section 10 "Significant and Programmatic Deviation from the GIP"(Page 10-1 of the l

referenced report), you stated that the Emergency Condensate Storage Tanks (%-CN-TK1) and the Refueling Water Storage Tanks (%-OS-TK-1) were analyzed using the DOE-sponsored methodology in BNL 52361. Our preliminary review of the October 1

1995 version of report BNL 52361, indicates that your tanks may not be within the scope of the report since the DOE waste tanks are buried and the report is for double-walled shells or concrete outer casings. The report states that application to other types of h

tank-structures and the suitability of adjusted versions of these concepts to other structural types will be addressed in a future version of this document. Provide the latest revision that addresses the type of tanks at the North Anna plant, or altematively, discuss how the tanks are within the scope of the report. Provide the evaluations of the Emergency Condensate Storage and Refueling Water Storage Tanks and any other outlier tanks that were resolved using the BNL 52361 methodology together with a technicaljustification for the methodologies used in the report. Also, the use of the HCLPF concept for the resolution of USl A-46 is not considered appropriate. If the tank evaluations were based on complex computer codes, indicate how these codes were verified and benchmarked.

9.

In reference to items (g) and (h) on page 10-2 of the referenced report, you stated that certain valves (i.e.,1-GN-PCV-125A-1,125A-2,1258-1,125B-2,1,2-RC-SOV-1455C-1, etc.) and transmitters (i.e.,1-FW-L1-1475,1484,1485,1486,1487,1494, etc.) were qualified using previously completed efforts documented in Design Change Packages (DCP) because the DCPs indicated that these vah es and transmitters are qualified to IEEE 344-1975 requirements. Please indicate if these valves and transmitters (or appropriate surrogates) were actually tested and/or analyzed its accordance with requirements of IEEE 344-1975 standard and whether you have verified their seismic qualification documentation.

10.

In reference to item (c) on page 10-1, provide a description and identification of the new modified / replaced pumps and discuss how these pumps met the seismic adequacy criteria in GlP-2.

11.

Provide the current resolution status for the identified outliers and plant installation deficiencies, including, but not limited to, those listed in Table 11.2-1 of the referenced submittal.

I 12.

On page 11-7, with regard to outliers for cable tray and the conduit raceway system, you i

stated that these outliers / issues were resolved to enhance the seismic capability of the raceway systems. Provide a more prescriptive discussion of the approach employed to resolve the outliers identified under items (6) and (7) of Section 11.1.4 of your summary report.

i i

!