ML042370592
| ML042370592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/2004 |
| From: | Chernoff H NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | Koehl D Nuclear Management Co |
| Chernoff, H, NRR/DLPM, 301-415-4018 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC2070 | |
| Download: ML042370592 (5) | |
Text
August 26, 2004 Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6590 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: STEAM GENERATOR EDDY CURRENT EXAMINATIONS FOR THE 2003 OUTAGE (TAC NO. MC2070)
Dear Mr. Koehl:
By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated November 7, 2003, the licensee submitted a report that summarizes the steam generator eddy current examinations performed at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, during Refueling Outage 26 (fall 2003).
The NRC staff is reviewing your request and has determined that the information identified in the enclosure to this letter is needed to complete its evaluation. The enclosed request was discussed with Mr. Jack Gadzala during a phone call on August 20, 2004. Your response to this request for additional information is requested within 60 days from the date of this letter.
Mr. Gadzala has agreed to this request.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301)415-4018 or email hkc@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Harold Chernoff, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-301
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: See next page
ML042370592 OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/PM NRR/DE/
EMCB/SC PDIII-1/LA PDIII-1/SC NAME HChernoff MCall ALund, per memo dated THarris LRaghavan DATE 08/26/04 08/25/04 05/06/04 08/25/04 08/26/04
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire Vice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Mr. F. D. Kuester President & Chief Executive Officer WE Generation 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 Regulatory Affairs Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, WI 54228 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Resident Inspectors Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Jeffery Kitsembel Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Nuclear Asset Manager Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 John Paul Cowan Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Douglas E. Cooper Senior Vice President - Group Operations Palisades Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 Site Director of Operations Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 July 2004
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC POINT BEACH UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-301 By letter dated November 7, 2003 (ML040060249), Nuclear Management Company, LLC, the licensee for Point Beach Unit 2, submitted a report summarizing the steam generator (SG) eddy current examinations performed at Point Beach Unit 2 during Refueling Outage 26 (fall 2003).
In addition to reviewing the November 7, 2003, letter, the staff also reviewed previous inspection results.
In order for the staff to complete its review, responses to the following questions are requested:
1.
The SGs at Point Beach Unit 2 were replaced in 1996, during Refueling Outage 22, with SGs that contain thermally-treated Inconel 690 tubes. In order for the staff to better understand the location of indications, provide a tubesheet map and a schematic of the Unit 2 SGs which depicts the tube support naming conventions. In addition, provide the following design information: SG designer and fabricator, tube manufacturer, tube wall thickness, tube pitch and pattern, tube support (including anti-vibration bar) thickness, tubesheet thickness, and the radii of row 1 tubes. In addition, discuss whether any of the low row tubes (or portions of them) were stress relieved after bending.
2.
In your response letter, dated March 20, 1998, to Generic Letter 97-06, Degradation of Steam Generators Internals, you indicated several inspections were to be performed on the SGs. Please discuss the results from the most recent inspections of the following:
a) upper package - the swirl vane, moisture separator, and feed ring areas inspection b) tube support plate ligament erosion-corrosion and cracking - secondary side upper tube bundle inspection c) wrapper drop and wrapper cracking - sludge lancing, top of tubesheet cleanliness inspections and Foreign Object Search and Retrieval inspections 3.
The staff was unable to locate any SG tube inspection results from refueling outage (RFO) 25. Please confirm that no SG tube inspections were performed during RFO 25.
In addition, please clarify the completion dates for RFO 25.
4.
For the scope of your RFO 26 inspection, you indicated 379 tubes (both ends) per SG bordering the peripheral and no-tube lane at the top of tubesheet expansion transitions were inspected. Please clarify what you mean by no-tube lane.
In addition, for the scope, you indicated 25 percent of the balance of top of tubesheet hot-leg expansion transitions were inspected. Please clarify what you mean by the balance. Were the other 75 percent of the tubes inspected in previous inspections?
5.
Please discuss whether any dents and/or dings have been identified in your SG tubes and if any rotating probe inspections were performed during RFO 26. If dent/dings have been identified, discuss whether the calibration procedure (for measuring dent size) is consistent with that described in Generic Letter 95-05 (or with industry guidelines). Also, discuss whether the dents and dings found during the RFO 26 inspections were traceable back to the baseline inspection and discuss any changes in magnitude. If the dents or dings are not traceable to your baseline inspection and/or have changed in magnitude, discuss the reason for any change.