ML021620457
| ML021620457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/2002 |
| From: | Rani Franovich NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | |
| Franovich R, NRR/RLEP, 415-1868 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML021620457 (10) | |
Text
June 7, 2002 LICENSEE :
Duke Energy Corporation FACILITIES:
McGuire, Units 1 and 2, and Catawba, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
TELECOMMUNICATION WITH DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION TO DISCUSS THE RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SECTION 2.1 OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION On January 17, 2002, the NRC staff (hereafter referred to as the staff) issued a request for additional information (RAI) pertaining to Section 2.1, Scoping and Screening Methodology, of the license renewal application (LRA). Duke Energy Corporation (hereafter referred to as the applicant) responded to this request by letter dated April 15, 2002. On May 24, 2002, a conference call was conducted between the NRC and Duke Energy Corporation to discuss information that was provided to the NRC in response to RAI 2.1-2(a) and 2.1-2(b). Participants of the May 24, 2002, conference call are provided in an attachment.
Spray Effects for Piping Less Than or Equal to One-inch Nominal Pipe Size (NPS)
The staff requested the applicant to clarify their responses to RAI 2.1-2(a) and 2.1-2(b). In particular, the staff asked the applicant to discuss spray effects for piping less than or equal to one-inch nominal pipe size (NPS). According to page 2 of NRC Inspection Report 50-269, -
270, -413, and -414/ 2002-05 (ML021280003, issued May 6, 2002), which documents the results of the NRCs scoping and screening inspection for license renewal, inspectors questioned the applicants justification for not considering spray effects for piping less than or equal to one-inch NPS. The inspection report also stated that the applicant believed that spray effects of other piping would bound this small piping and that very little of this piping is believed to be located in positions to have a spray effect. According to the inspection report, the applicant intended to address the criteria for nonsafety-related effects on safety-related systems and the justification for not considering the spray effect for the smaller piping in its response to RAI 2.1-2.
The staff reviewed the applicants response to RAI 2.1-2, which stated that for moderate-energy spray sources in the vicinity [of equipment that was to be protected], a through wall crack was postulated at all pipe fitting welds and welded attachments of all moderate-energy spray sources greater than (1) inch nominal pipe size. However, the applicants response did not provide a discussion of the justification for not considering spray effects for piping less than or equal to one-inch NPS. During the May 24, 2002, conference call, the staff asked the applicant to discuss this issue.
The applicant reiterated the justification provided in the inspection report, indicating that parallel runs of piping typically included multiple pipes of varying sizes, and that small pipes were proximal to larger pipes that were evaluated for spray effects. As such, the evaluation bounded potential spray effects from the smaller piping. The staff asked Duke if the potential existed at McGuire and Catawba for small pipe runs proximal to safety-related equipment to be remote from (or not proximal to) larger pipes, such that spray effects for the area were overlooked.
The applicant indicated that the same question had been asked of piping engineers at the plants. According to the piping engineers, this potential did not exist in areas housing safety-related equipment, since piping runs (and spaces within the plants) tend to include a number of pipes of various sizes.
The staff considered this response reasonable. Additionally, inspectors will have an opportunity to verify this information during plant walkdowns, which are planned for both McGuire and Catawba during Aging Management Review inspections scheduled for July 2002.
Pipe Classifications and Original Design Considerations The staff asked the applicant if any high-energy lines were classified as Class E, G, or H (non-seismic). The applicant referred the staff to page 2 of the NRC Inspection Report 50-269, -270,
-413, and -414/ 2002-05, which documents the results of the NRCs scoping and screening inspection for license renewal. The inspection report states that, for leakage considerations, the applicant had designed all high-energy piping in safety-related areas as safety-related or Class F (both of which are seismically qualified). The inspection report also stated that the review of license renewal drawings indicated that most piping in containment was seismically mounted safety-related or Class F or less than or equal to one inch NPS. The applicant then referred the staff to their response to RAI 2.1-2, which was provided in Attachment 4 to the letter dated April 15, 2002. Page 5 of Attachment 4 discussed the options taken by Duke to address potential impacts to safety-related equipment that could potentially be caused by fluid interaction from nonsafety-related systems or components.
The staff was satisfied with this response from the applicant and the information provided in the LRA, the NRC inspection report, and the RAI response from Duke as it pertained to pipe classifications and original design considerations.
A draft of this telecommunication summary was provided to the applicant to allow them the opportunity to comment prior to the summary being issued.
/RA/
Rani L. Franovich, Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414
Attachment:
As stated cc w/attachment: See next page potential spray effects from the smaller piping. The staff asked Duke if the potential existed at McGuire and Catawba for small pipe runs proximal to safety-related equipment to be remote from (or not prox imal to) larger pipes, such that spray effects for the area were overlooked.
The applciant indicated that the same question had been asked of piping engineers at the plants. According to the piping engineers, this potential did not exist in areas housing safety-related equipment, since piping runs (and spaces within the plants) tend to include a number of pipes of various sizes.
The staff considered this response reasonable. Additionally, inspectors will have an opportunity to verify this information during plant walkdowns, which are planned for both McGuire and Catawba during Aging Management Review inspections scheduled for July 2002.
Pipe Classifications and Original Design Considerations The staff asked the applicant if any high-energy lines were classified as Class E, G, or H (non-seismic). The applicant referred the staff to page 2 of the NRC Inspection Report 50-269, -270,
-413, and -414/ 2002-05, which documents the results of the NRCs scoping and screening inspection for license renewal. The inspection report states that, for leakage considerations, the applicant had designed all high-energy piping in safety-related areas as safety-related or Class F (both of which are seismically qualified). The inspection report also stated that the review of license renewal drawings indicated that most piping in containment was seismically mounted safety-related or Class F or less than or equal to one inch NPS. The applicant then referred the staff to their response to RAI 2.1-2, which was provided in Attachment 4 to the letter dated April 15, 2002. Page 5 of Attachment 4 discussed the options taken by Duke to address potential impacts to safety-related equipment that could potentially be caused by fluid interaction from nonsafety-related systems or components.
The staff was satisfied with this response from the applicant and the information provided in the LRA, the NRC inspection report, and the RAI response from Duke as it pertained to pipe classifications and original design considerations.
A draft of this telecommunication summary was provided to the applicant to allow them the opportunity to comment prior to the summary being issued.
/RA/
Rani L. Franovich, Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414
Attachment:
As stated cc w/attachment: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
See next page Document Name: C:\\ORPCheckout\\FileNET\\ML021620457.wpd OFFICE LA:DRIP TR:IEHB:DIPM TR:IEHB:DIPM PM:RLEP:DRIP SC:RLEP:DRIP NAME E Hylton G Galletti B Rogers R Franovich S Hoffman DATE 6/5/02 6/6 /02 6/5 /02 6/5/02 6/7/02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY RLEP RF E. Hylton E-MAIL:
PUBLIC J. Johnson W. Borchardt D. Matthews F. Gillespie P.T. Kuo C. Casto E. Imbro G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo C. Holden P. Shemanski H. Nieh G. Holahan S. Black B. Boger D. Thatcher G. Galletti J. Moore R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy W. McDowell S. Droggitis S. Duraiswamy RLEP Staff R. Architzel R. Martin C. Patel C. Julian (RII)
R. Haag (RII)
S. Uttal (OGC)
M. Khanna H. Walker B. Rogers G. Galletti
McGuire & Catawba Nuclear Stations, Units 1 and 2 Mr. Gary Gilbert Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse York, South Carolina 29745 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Ms. Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 Mr. Robert L. Gill, Jr.
Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. Alan Nelson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P. O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4830 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land & Waste Management S.C. Dept of Health and Environ. Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Mr. C. Jeffrey Thomas Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. L. A. Keller Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV VP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinghouse Electric Company 6000 Fairview Road - 12th Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director North Carolina Dept of Env, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Michael T. Cash Regulatory Compliance Manager
Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Site 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Dr. John M. Barry Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection 700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Mr. Gregory D. Robison Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Mary Olson Nuclear Information & Resource Service Southeast Office P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 Paul Gunter Nuclear Information & Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League P.O. Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 Don Moniak Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Aiken Office P.O. Box 3487 Aiken, South Carolina 29802-3487
TELECOMMUNICATION PARTICIPANTS May 24, 2002 Staff Participants Rani Franovich Bill Rogers Greg Galletti Duke Energy Corporation Participants Greg Robison Bob Gill Rounette Nader Attachment