ML051310018
ML051310018 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Beaver Valley |
Issue date: | 05/24/2005 |
From: | Colburn T NRC/NRR/DLPM |
To: | Pearce L FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
Colburn T, NRR/DLPM, 415-1402 | |
References | |
GL-04-001, TAC MC4800, TAC MC4801 | |
Download: ML051310018 (6) | |
Text
May 24, 2005 Mr. L. William Pearce Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077
SUBJECT:
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (BVPS-1 AND 2) -
EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER (GL) 2004-01, REQUIREMENTS FOR STEAM GENERATOR [SG] TUBE INSPECTIONS, (TAC NOS. MC4800 AND MC4801)
Dear Mr. Pearce:
On August 30, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued GL 2004-01 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML042370766). By letter dated October 28, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML043080402),
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) responded to GL 2004-01 for BVPS-1 and 2. The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of your response. The NRC staff concluded that the SG tube inspection practices for BVPS-1 are in compliance with the existing tube inspection requirements. The NRC staff further concluded that the licensees overall response to the GL was acceptable for BVPS-2. This completes our review under TAC Nos. MC4800 and MC4801.
Details of the NRC staffs review of BVPS-1 and 2 are contained in Enclosures 1 and 2. If you have any questions please contact me at 301-415-1402.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager,Section 1 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412
Enclosures:
- 1. Evaluation of the BVPS-1 GL 2004-01 Response
- 2. Evaluation of the BVPS-2 GL 2004-01 Response cc w/encls: See next page
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) responded to GL 2004-01 for BVPS-1 and 2. The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of your response. The NRC staff concluded that the SG tube inspection practices for BVPS-1 are in compliance with the existing tube inspection requirements. The NRC staff further concluded that the licensees overall response to the GL was acceptable for BVPS-2. This completes our review under TAC Nos. MC4800 and MC4801.
Details of the NRC staffs review of BVPS-1 and 2 are contained in Enclosures 1 and 2. If you have any questions please contact me at 301-415-1402.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager,Section 1 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412
Enclosures:
- 1. Evaluation of the BVPS-1 GL 2004-01 Response
- 2. Evaluation of the BVPS-2 GL 2004-01 Response cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC MO'Brien ACRS PDI-1 R/F TColburn RBellamy, RGN-I OGC RLaufer Llund JTerrell DLPM DPR PKlein MYoder ACCESSION NO. ML051310018 *Evalution inputs provided. No substantive changes made.
OFFICE PDI-1/PM PDI-1/LA EMCB/SC PDI-1/SC NAME TColburn MOBrien LLund* RLaufer DATE 5/23/05 5/23/05 4/20/05 and 4/25/05 5/24/05 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Mary OReilly, Attorney Rich Janati, Chief FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Division of Nuclear Safety FirstEnergy Corporation Bureau of Radiation Protection 76 South Main Street Department of Environmental Protection Akron, OH 44308 Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 8469 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 Regulatory Affairs/Performance Improvement Mayor of the Borough of Shippingport Larry R. Freeland, Manager P O Box 3 Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, PA 15077 Post Office Box 4, BV-A Shippingport, PA 15077 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner James R. Lewis 475 Allendale Road West Virginia Division of Labor King of Prussia, PA 19406 749-B, Building No. 6 Capitol Complex Resident Inspector Charleston, WV 25305 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 298 Director, Utilities Department Shippingport, PA 15077 Public Utilities Commission 180 East Broad Street FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Columbus, OH 43266-0573 Beaver Valley Power Station ATTN: R. G. Mende, Director Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Work Management (BV-IPAB)
Management Agency Post Office Box 4 2605 Interstate Dr. Shippingport, PA 15077 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9364 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Ohio EPA-DERR Beaver Valley Power Station ATTN: Zack A. Clayton Mr. B. F. Sepelak Post Office Box 1049 Post Office Box 4, BV-A Columbus, OH 43266-0149 Shippingport, PA 15077 Dr. Judith Johnsrud National Energy Committee Sierra Club 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16803 J. H. Lash, Plant Manager (BV-IPAB)
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077
EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER (GL) 2004-01 REQUIREMENTS FOR STEAM GENERATOR (SG) TUBE INSPECTIONS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 (BVPS-1)
FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (FENOC)
DOCKET NO. 50-334 On August 30, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued GL 2004-01, Requirements For Steam Generator Tube Inspections. The purpose of GL 2004-01 was to obtain information that would enable the NRC staff to determine whether a licensees SG tube inspection programs comply with the existing tube inspection requirements (the BVPS-1 Technical Specifications) in conjunction with Appendix B to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B.
By letter dated October 28, 2004, FENOC responded to GL 2004-01 for BVPS-1. The NRC staffs review of your response to the GL did not identify any concerns with the inspection practices employed at BVPS-1. The NRC staff, therefore, concludes that your SG tube inspection practices are in compliance with the existing tube inspection requirements.
Principal Contributor: J. Terrell Date: May 24, 2005 ENCLOSURE 1
EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER (GL) 2004-01 REQUIREMENTS FOR STEAM GENERATOR (SG) TUBE INSPECTIONS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (BVPS-2)
FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (FENOC)
DOCKET NO. 50-412 On August 30, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued GL 2004-01, Requirements For Steam Generator Tube Inspections. The purpose of GL 2004-01 was to obtain information that would enable the NRC staff to determine whether a licensees SG tube inspection programs comply with the existing tube inspection requirements (the BVPS-2 Technical Specifications) in conjunction with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B.
Licensees who concluded that their SG tube inspections have not been or are not being performed consistent with the NRCs position on the requirements in the Technical Specifications in conjunction with Appendix B, were requested to submit a safety assessment.
As part of this safety assessment, licensees were to address whether their safety basis for limiting inspections within the tubesheet constitutes a change to the method of evaluation for establishing the structural and leakage integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joint. The NRC staff requested this information since it was expected that licensees' safety basis relied on a mechanical expansion joint rather than the tube-to-tubesheet weld. Since the original tube-to-tubesheet joint was most probably designed by demonstrating that the stresses in the tube, weld, and tubesheet satisfy the allowable stress values in Section III of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) (or other similar standard), the NRC staff questioned whether the safety basis for limiting inspections relied on demonstrating that the expansion joint satisfied some criteria (e.g., minimum tube pullout load criteria, allowable leakage) beyond those specified in Section III of the ASME Code.
By letter dated October 28, 2004, FENOC responded to GL 2004-01 for BVPS-2. In your response, you conclude that the safety basis used to support your tube inspection practices does not constitute a change to the method of evaluation. This conclusion appears to be based, in part, on an assumption that the GL was implying that the selection of non-destructive evaluation techniques defines the limits of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The GL's discussion of the original design basis, however, was related to the "safety analysis" performed by certain licensees to support a conclusion that flaws located a certain distance below the top of the tubesheet do not have any safety implications. This safety basis relies on a mechanical interference fit between the tube and the tubesheet for establishing the tube-to-tubesheet joint (i.e., forming the reactor coolant pressure boundary). However, for many plants (if not all), the original design of the SG gave no credit for this interference fit since the weld between the tube and the tubesheet ensured the integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joint. In fact, the design rules ENCLOSURE 2
(ASME Code,Section III) do not address the use of an interference fit for maintaining pressure boundary integrity. As a result, the NRC staff questioned whether licensees were using a different method of evaluation for assessing the adequacy of the tube-to-tubesheet joint.
Although your response to the method of evaluation" item did not focus on the NRC staff's area of concern, we conclude that your overall response to the GL is acceptable, since you indicated that your tube inspection practices at BVPS-2 are not consistent with the NRC staff position, and that this has been entered into your corrective action program. You further indicated that you plan on submitting a license amendment to clarify your SG tube inspection practices in the tubesheet region. In the event that a different method of evaluation for the tube-to-tubesheet joint is in use at BVPS-2, it will be reviewed as part of the license amendment process.
Principal Contributors: J. Terrell P. Klein Date: May 24, 2005