ML031320010
| ML031320010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/2003 |
| From: | Martin R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2 |
| To: | Tuckman M Duke Energy Corp |
| Martin R, NRR/DLPM, 415-1493 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB7531, TAC MB7532, TAC MB7533, TAC MB7534 | |
| Download: ML031320010 (7) | |
Text
May 12, 2003 Mr. Michael S. Tuckman Executive Vice President Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church St Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 RE: ICE BED REVISED ICE MASS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (TAC NOS. MB7533, MB7534, MB7531, AND MB7532)
Dear Mr. Tuckman:
By letter dated January 31, 2003, you submitted applications for amendment to the operating licenses for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to incorporate an asymmetrical ice mass distribution within the ice condenser containment by specifying revised safety analysis ice mass quantity requirements for three specific radial zones of the ice bed.
Associated changes to the Bases were also proposed.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information provided and has determined that additional information is required. Our questions are provided in the Enclosure.
We discussed these questions with your staff on May 6, 2003. Your staff indicated that a response could be provided by June 13, 2003.
Please contact me at (301) 415-1493, if you have any other questions on these issues.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, 50-414
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
ML031320010 OFFICE PDII-1/PM SPLB/SC
- PDII-1/LA PDII1/SC NAME RMartin SWeerakkody CHawes JNakoski DATE 05/08/03 05/06/03 05/09/03 05/09/03
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON APPLICATION FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTS DUKE POWER COMPANY WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 By letter dated January 31, 2003 (Reference 1), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) proposed to revise the facility Technical Specifications (TS) and associated Bases for the McGuire (MNS) and the Catawba Nuclear Stations (CNS) to incorporate the following changes:
1.
Revise the methodology and frequency for verifying the required quantity of ice mass within the ice condenser ice bed.
2.
Incorporate an asymmetrical ice mass distribution in three radial zones of the ice bed and remove the reference to azimuthal distribution verification.
Duke proposed the above changes to adopt and comply with the revisions to the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specification Task Force traveler (TSTF) number 429 (References 2 and 3) and the Ice Condenser Utility Groups (ICUG) Topical Report, ICUG-001, Revision 0, (as discussed in Reference 4).
Please provide the following plant-specific information to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to complete its review of the application:
1.
Ice Mass Determination Methodology:
The current Catawba Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.12.4 and McGuire SR 3.6.12.2, and their Bases reflect that the method of ice mass determination is by direct weighing of the ice baskets. The proposed revisions include the provision of ice mass determination by direct lifting or alternate techniques. The topical report indicates that direct lifting is the preferred method. The proposed TS implies that the ice mass could be determined in its entirety by alternate techniques with or without stuck baskets. Also, as indicated in the topical report, the details regarding these alternate methods are contained in plant-specific procedures.
Identify the alternate techniques (ICEMAN or visual inspection) to be used for Catawba and McGuire. For each of the methods, the NRC staff requires the following information:
a)
A discussion of the accuracy and the precision of the method in terms of the computer software or physical devices used and their method of application.
Provide plant-specific justification for the standard deviation and the assumed method random error to be used for specific operational cycles. Discuss plans for dealing with the following concerns:
i)
At present, there is no limit on how many times the two alternate methods may be used successively to estimate the weight of a given basket or radial zone. Are there any limits? If not, specify the method of determination.
ii)
The proposed TS do not require the weighing of any baskets. Table A-1 of the topical report indicates that estimation techniques will be used for over 80 percent of the baskets in row 9 and over 70 percent of the baskets in row 1, for example. Provide criteria for the proportion of plant-specific mass determination to be performed by each method.
iii)
Provide the information supporting the bias and uncertainty values for meeting the TS minimum weight of 600 lbs per basket criterion.
b)
Provide correlations and data to demonstrate the adequacy of any estimation methods used to predict ice weight for Catawba and McGuire.
b)
Describe the processes that will ensure that once the adequacy of an alternate method is determined, it will continue to be maintained.
d)
Provide a discussion of the training and qualifications of the personnel that will perform the inspections or estimations.
c)
Identify any areas where the plant-specific application differs from the ICUG topical report.
f)
Provide a sample calculation showing how individual ice basket weight data, both measured and estimated, will be processed to determine compliance with the TS limit values.
2.
Asymmetrical ice mass distribution in three radial zones of the ice bed:
The current ice mass determination method is designed to weigh representative samples of 6 baskets from each of the 24 ice condenser bays, for a total of 144 weighed baskets. The proposed changes use random sampling to select individual baskets. The random sampling includes dividing the ice bed into 3 radial zones and sampling at least 30 baskets from each zone (for a total of at least 90 baskets) from the entire ice bed. Dukes definition of these 3 radial zones is different from the one proposed in the ICUG topical report and TSTF-429.
Referring to the following statements regarding the asymmetrical ice mass distribution, specific operating characteristics of the ice condensers and Dukes maintenance practices, provide the plant specific information for Catawba and McGuire:
a.
Reference 1, Enclosure 11, Page 3, Paragraph 2, under Asymmetric Mass distribution, states that:
Duke has evaluated the specific operating characteristics of each of the Catawba and McGuire ice condensers to determine an effective grouping of these rows and ice mass acceptance criterion for each zone.
What are the specific operating characteristics that are evaluated, and how are they are aligned with the grouping of radial zones for Catawba and McGuire?
b.
Reference 1, Enclosure 11, Page 4, Paragraph 4, states that:
Asymmetrical distribution provides an ice mass acceptance criterion for each zone that takes the greatest credit in the low sublimation zone, and the least in the highest sublimation zone. Therefore, containment response analysis is aligned with operating characteristics, and the increased service life of the stored ice in high sublimation baskets results in less wastage of stored ice.
Explain how the operating characteristics are used in the containment response analysis.
c.
Reference 1, Enclosure 11, Page 5, Paragraph 2, states that:
Sublimation allowances will continue to be managed by the CNS and MNS maintenance programs. Dukes utilization of the data from previous performance of TS required ice mass inspections, and additional inspection beyond these requirements, has enabled the development of a maintenance program that is reliably predictive regarding the specific operating characteristics of each of the ice beds on an individual basket basis.
Provide details on the Catawba and McGuire maintenance programs, including additional inspections beyond the TS requirements.
3.
Minimum Ice Mass Requirement for Individual Ice Baskets:
Referring to the proposed SR 3.6.12.4, Insert A, and its associated Bases, provide the following:
a)
Details on maintenance practices for the plant-specific active mass management to the safety analysis mean for individual baskets.
b)
Clarify the statement underlined below:
If any ice basket is identified to be deficient with respect to these ice mass values, this condition is to be addressed in the licensees corrective action program. This alone is not considered a significant condition adverse to quality as long as the ice mass requirements of SR 3.6.12.4 and SR 3.6.12.5 remain satisfied.
Under the maintenance procedures, what are the corrective actions and reporting requirements to be followed even though this alone is not a TS violation? In Duke Quality Assurance Program description (reference 5), the corrective action program is associated with conditions that are adverse to quality. Please discuss the comparable processes and criteria in the Quality Assurance Program that will apply to treatment of this issue in the licensees corrective action program if the condition is not considered to be adverse to quality.
References
- 1. Letter from Duke Energy Corporation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Amendment to Technical Specification 3.6.12 - Ice Bed, Ice Mass Surveillance Requirements, dated January 31, 2003.
- 2. Industry/TSTF Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, dated January 27, 2002, (TSTF-429, Rev. 0 package - proposed changes to revise the Ice Bed TS and associated TS Bases in Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.6.15.2).
- 3. Letter from R.S. Lytton, Ice Condenser Utility Group, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Response to Follow-up Questions on Ice Condenser Utility Group Topical Report No. ICUG-001, Rev. 0, and TSTF-429, dated November 26, 2002.
- 4. Letter from U.S. NRC to R.S. Lytton, Ice Condenser Utility Group, Draft Safety Evaluation for Ice Condenser Utility Group Topical Report No. ICUG-001, Revision 0, dated May 6, 2003.
- 5. Letter, M. S. Tuckman, Duke Power Company to NRC, Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, Amendment 32, dated December 18, 2002.
McGuire Nuclear Station cc:
Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Legal Department (PBO5E)
Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 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 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20005 Senior Resident Inspector c/o 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. Peter R. Harden, IV VP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinghouse Electric Company 6000 Fairview Road 12th Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. C. Jeffrey Thomas Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 NCEM REP Program Manager 4713 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4713 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. H. B. Barron Vice President, McGuire Site Duke Energy Corporation 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-8985