ML050830329
| ML050830329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/2004 |
| From: | Lund A NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB |
| To: | Raghavan L NRC/NRR/DLPM |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282, TAC MC2070 | |
| Download: ML050830329 (4) | |
Text
aIN-May 6, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Lakshminaras Raghavan, Chief Project Directorate Section 111-1 Division of Licensing Project Management FROM:
A. Louise Lund, Section Chief IRA!
Steam Generator Integrity and Chemical Engineering Section Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING POINT BEACH UNIT 2 STEAM GENERATOR EDDY CURRENT EXAMINATIONS FOR THE 2003 OUTAGE (TAC NO.: MC2070)
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 2 during refueling outage 26 (Fall 2003). In order for the staff to complete its review, responses to the following questions are requested.
Docket:
Attachment:
CONTACT:
50-301 As Stated Brian Lee, NRR/DE/EMCB 301-415-4086
,8-9
ML041410048 INDICATF IN BOX: M"-C0PY WIO ATTACHMFNT/FNCILOSU1RF- "F-COPY W/ATT/FNCL-N"-NO COPY I EMCB:DE E
EMCB:DE
]
NAME BLee ALLund DATE 05/05/2004 05/06/2004
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 2 during refueling outage 26 (Fall 2003). In addition to reviewing the November 7, 2003 letter, the staff also reviewed the previous inspection results of the steam generators.
In order for the staff to complete its review, responses to the following questions are requested:
- 1.
The SGs at Point Beach 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 steam generators. 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 (FOSAR) inspections
- 3.
The staff was unable to locate any SG tube inspection results from refueling outage (RFO) 25. Please confirm that no steam generator 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% 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% of the tubes inspected in previous inspections?
ATTACHMENT
- 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.
2