ML051080428

R. E. Ginna, RAI, Fracture Mechanics Analysis

ML051080428
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	05/02/2005
From:	Skay D NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Korsnick M Ginna
Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322
References
TAC MC4929
Download: ML051080428 (5)

Text

May 2, 2005 Mrs. Mary G. Korsnick Vice President R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY 14519

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS (TAC NO.

MC4929)

Dear Mrs. Korsnick:

By letter dated September 30, 2004, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LCC (Ginna) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting that the dynamic effects of certain postulated high-energy line breaks be excluded from their design bases.

The NRC staff has reviewed the information and based on our review, we have determined that additional information is required in order for the staff to complete its review. Enclosed is the NRC staffs request for additional information (RAI). This RAI was discussed with your staff on April 15, 2005, and it was agreed that your response would be provided 30 days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Donna Skay, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate 1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page

May 2, 2005 Mrs. Mary G. Korsnick Vice President R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY 14519

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS (TAC NO.

MC4929)

Dear Mrs. Korsnick:

By letter dated September 30, 2004, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LCC (Ginna) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting that the dynamic effects of certain postulated high-energy line breaks be excluded from their design bases.

The NRC staff has reviewed the information and based on our review, we have determined that additional information is required in order for the staff to complete its review. Enclosed is the NRC staffs request for additional information (RAI). This RAI was discussed with your staff on April 15, 2005, and it was agreed that your response would be provided 30 days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Donna Skay, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate 1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F RLaufer SLittle DSkay ACRS OGC JTsao G.Matakas, R1 TChan Accession Number: ML051080428 OFFICE PDI-1/PM EMCB/SC PDI-1/LA PDI-1/SC NAME DSkay TChan SLittle RLaufer DATE 4/26/05 4/27/05 4/25/05 4/28/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant cc:

Mr. Michael J. Wallace President Ms. Thelma Wideman, Director R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC Wayne County Emergency Management c/o Constellation Energy Office 750 East Pratt Street Wayne County Emergency Operations Baltimore, MD 21202 Center 7336 Route 31 Mr. John M. Heffley Lyons, NY 14489 Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Ms. Mary Louise Meisenzahl Constellation Generation Group Administrator, Monroe County 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Office of Emergency Preparedness Suite 500 1190 Scottsville Road, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401 Rochester, NY 14624 Kenneth Kolaczyk, Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. Paul Eddy R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant New York State Department of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service 1503 Lake Road 3 Empire State Plaza, 10th Floor Ontario, NY 14519 Albany, NY 12223 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Peter R. Smith, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Carey W. Fleming, Esquire Senior Counsel - Nuclear Generation Constellation Generation Group, LLC 750 East Pratt Street, 17th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF POSTULATED HIGH-ENERGY LINE BREAKS By letter dated September 30, 2004, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC submitted for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review and approval analyses regarding the dynamic effects of postulated high-energy line breaks for the pressurizer surge line and accumulator A and B lines at the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. These analyses are documented in two reports: WCAP-16311-P, Revision 0, Technical Justification for Eliminating Pressurizer Surge Line Rupture as the Structural Design Basis for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, and SIR-99-036, Leak-Before-Break Evaluation of Portions of the Accumulator A and B Piping at R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station, June 1999. To complete its review, the staff requests additional information regarding both reports.

Questions regarding analysis of the Pressurizer Surge Line The following questions refer to sections of WCAP-16311-P.

1. Section 2.1, states that Alloy 82/182 weld material is not found in the pressurizer surge line; however, the report did not discuss the weld materials. Discuss the materials used in all welds in the surge line and indicate whether safe ends or thermal sleeves are used at these joints.

2. Section 2.4 states that there has been no service cracking or wall thinning identified in the pressurizer surge line of Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors. Discuss the results of past inservice inspection(s) on the Ginna surge line.

3. The material properties for the surge piping are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Confirm that limiting material properties were used when performing the limit load analysis.

4. Page 4-4 states that the second highest stress weld is located at Node 1120, which is located on a straight section of the pipe as shown in Figure 4-1 of the report. Discuss why a straight section of pipe has incurred high stresses since high stresses usually are located at nozzles, tees, or elbows, not at a straight section of the pipe.

5. Table 4-2 provides the normal and faulted loading cases for leak-before-break evaluations. Discuss whether the pressurizer reflood transient is included in the limit load analysis.

6. Section 6.2 discusses the results of the fatigue crack growth analyses. The report states that the initial flaw sizes were assumed to be 10% of the wall thickness.

However, in leak-before-break analyses for other nuclear plants, Westinghouse assumed several initial flaw sizes. With this limited assumption (i.e., small and only one flaw size), explain why the fatigue growth assessment is adequate to assess fatigue cracking and associated growth. Discuss why several initial flaw sizes were not assumed for Ginna.

Enclosure

7. Section 6.2 states that the 60-year design transients and cycles are the same as those of 40 years for the Ginna surge line. Discuss the basis for this statement.

8. Section 7 states that the leak detection capability is 0.25 gpm per hour at Ginna. In recent industry experience, improved fuel integrity and reduced reactor coolant system (RCS) radioactivity levels have caused the gaseous channel of the containment atmosphere radiation monitor to become less effective for RCS leakage detection. It could take longer to detect RCS leakage than is required in the plant technical specifications. For example, the time required to detect a 1 gpm leak with the containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitors ranges from 223 to 839 hours0.00971 days <br />0.233 hours <br />0.00139 weeks <br />3.192395e-4 months <br /> at a domestic nuclear plant, while the time required to detect the same leak with the particulate monitors now ranges from 3.6 to 7.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. In light of recent industry experience, discuss how the current leak detection system is capable of detecting 0.25 gpm per hour in the containment, and demonstrate how the redundancy, reliability, and sensitivity criteria as recommended in Standard Review Plan 3.6.3.III.3 and Regulatory Guide 1.45 are satisfied.

Questions regarding analysis of the Accumulator Lines The following questions relate to SIR-99-036, Leak-Before-Break Evaluation of Portions of the Accumulator A and B Piping at R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station.

9. Section 1.1 discusses the portions of the accumulator piping included in the leak-before-break (LBB) analyses:

(a) For Accumulator B piping, only nodes 60 and 80 were included which denote both ends of an elbow. Discuss why the rest of the Accumulator B line was not included in the analysis.

(b) For Accumulator A piping, only node 856 was included. Confirm that the LBB analysis considered only the welds in both Accumulator A and B piping and that no pipe segments were considered.

(c) Confirm that the welds, instead of pipe segments, were chosen for the LBB analysis because they have the highest stresses with the most limiting material properties of both accumulator A and B lines.

10. Section 4.2 discusses the material properties for the accumulator piping and welds.

Discuss whether there are any Alloy 82/182 welds located in the accumulator lines that are covered by the LBB application.