ML092920125
| ML092920125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/2009 |
| From: | Kalyanam N Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | Clark R Entergy Operations |
| Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-1480 | |
| References | |
| GL-08-001, TAC MD7793, TAC MD7794 | |
| Download: ML092920125 (3) | |
Text
From:
Kalyanam, Kaly Sent:
Monday, October 19, 2009 10:16 AM To:
CLARK, ROBERT W Cc:
BICE, DAVID B
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - GL 2008-01 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 2008-01 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NUMBER: 50-313 and 50-368 TAC Nos. MD7793 AND MD7794
1.0 BACKGROUND
By letters dated October 14, 2008, and March 16, 2009, Entergy Operations Inc. (Entergy), the licensee for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, provided a response to Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems. On the basis of the provided information, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded that additional information is required from the licensee to determine that the licensee has acceptably demonstrated that the subject systems are in compliance with the current licensing and design bases and applicable regulatory requirements, and that suitable design, operational, and testing control measures are in place for maintaining this compliance as stated in Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01.
The schedule for the response to the request for additional information (RAI) was discussed with Mr. Robert Clark of Entergy and Mr. Clark indicated that Entergy would respond to the RAI within 30 days of the receipt of the formal RAI.
- 2. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Guidance on Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff expectations is provided by Reference 1 which is generally consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance provided to industry in Reference 2 as clarified in later NEI communications. The NRC staff recommends that the licensee consult Reference 1 when responding to the following Draft Request for Additional Information:
Items specifically applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) Unit 1:
- 1. Discuss how core flood (CF) system venting procedures assure operability when the system is similarly voided under design basis conditions.
For instance:
- a. Are the CF tanks assumed (in applicable LOCA analyses) to empty under 60-70 psi pressure differential conditions? Please comment on any differences.
- b. Does the LOCA model assume CF tank discharge characteristics that are as likely to sweep away voiding as the current venting procedure?
- 2. Discuss whether ultrasonic testing (UT) and/or venting is re-performed at locations where gas may accumulate during venting at other locations to verify gas was removed during venting and ensure gas was not transported to a high point that was previously found to be void free. If such activity is deemed unnecessary at ANO1, please briefly explain why.
Items specifically applicable to ANO2:
- 3. Explain why Safety Injection Tanks (the staff assumes that SIT stands for Safety Injection Tank) are not identified as within the scope of the GL 2008-001 review.
- 4. Provide additional details regarding the statement, ANO-2 procedures provide assurance that the volume of gas in the pump suction piping for the subject systems is limited such that pump gas ingestion is within the above established interim criteria (Reference 3). Please summarize the actions required by these procedures, focusing on those aspects assuring that gas ingestion is within the criteria.
Items applicable to both units:
- 5. Describe how gas void volumes have been or would be determined for comparison to the acceptance criteria discussed in Attachments 1 and 2 to Reference 1. With regard to ANO-1, please ensure that the response addresses voiding in the LPI lines, particularly upstream of DH 13A/B, DH-17, DH-18; NaOH piping, and any voiding assessed for the CF tanks. With regard to ANO-2, please ensure that the response addresses qualitative determinations, i.e., please clarify statements such as, two minor voids were identified in the CSS bypass lines (Reference 3).
- 6. Provide a brief discussion of any training that is planned in response to GL 2008-001.
REFERENCES 1 Ruland, William H., USNRC, letter to Riley, James H., Nuclear Energy Institute.
Preliminary Assessment of Responses to Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation in emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems, and Future NRC Staff Review Plans, May 28, 2009. ADAMS Accession ML091390637.
2 Riley, James H., Nuclear Energy Institute, letter to Administrative Points of Contact Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling,
Decay Heat Removal, and Contain Spray Systems Evaluation and 3 Month Response Template, Enclosure 2, Generic Letter 2008-01 Response Guidance, March 20, 2008.
3 Mitchell, Timothy G., Entergy Operations, letter to USNRC, Nine-Month Response to NRC Generic Letter 2008-01 Dockets 50-313 and 50-368, October 14, 2008.
ADAMS Accession ML082900147.
E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties ()
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - GL 2008-01 Sent Date: 10/19/2009 9:23:26 AM Received Date: 10/19/2009 10:16:00 AM From: Kalyanam, Kaly Created By: Kaly.Kalyanam@nrc.gov Recipients:
RCLARK@entergy.com (CLARK, ROBERT W)
Tracking Status: None DBICE@entergy.com (BICE, DAVID B)
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 17002 10/19/2009 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: