ML061310405

R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant - Request for Additional Information Regarding Steam Generator Tube Inspection Summary Report for the Spring 2005 Outage

ML061310405
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	05/16/2006
From:	Milano P NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLA
To:	Korsnick M Ginna
Milano P, NRR/DLPM , 415-1457
Shared Package
OARC20060524mjr=Added comment	List: ML061310405
References
TAC MD1207
Download: ML061310405 (6)

Text

May 16, 2006 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:

R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION

SUMMARY

REPORT FOR THE SPRING 2005 OUTAGE (TAC NO. MD1207)

Dear Mrs. Korsnick:

By letter dated July 1, 2005, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee), submitted its steam generator tube inspection summary report for the spring 2005 outage at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information provided in the summary report and has determined that additional information is needed. The specific information is described in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). During a telephone discussion with your staff on May 11, 2006, it was agreed that a response would be provided within 60 days from the date of this letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1457.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page

May 16, 2006 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:

R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION

SUMMARY

REPORT FOR THE SPRING 2005 OUTAGE (TAC NO. MD1207)

Dear Mrs. Korsnick:

By letter dated July 1, 2005, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee), submitted its steam generator tube inspection summary report for the spring 2005 outage at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information provided in the summary report and has determined that additional information is needed. The specific information is described in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). During a telephone discussion with your staff on May 11, 2006, it was agreed that a response would be provided within 45 days from the date of this letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1457.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page Accession Number: ML061310405 OFFICE LPLI-1\PM LPLI-1\LA CSGB\(A)BC LPLI-1\BC NAME PMilano SLittle TBloomer RLaufer DATE 05/11/06 05/14/06 05/09/06 05/16/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION

SUMMARY

REPORT FOR THE SPRING 2005 OUTAGE AT R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPLI-1 Reading File R. Laufer RidsNrrDorlLpla S. Little RidsNrrLASLittle P. Milano RidsNrrPMPMilano T. Bloomer RidsNrrDciCsgb K. Karwoski Y. Díaz-Castillo OGC RidsOgcRp ACRS RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter B. McDermott, R-I RidsRgn1MailCenter B. Singal RidsNrrDorlLdpr cc: Plant Service list

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant cc:

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

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION REPORT R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, LLC R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 By letter dated July 1, 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML051930115), R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee) submitted its steam generator (SG) tube inspection summary report for the spring 2005 refueling outage.

The SG tube inspection summary was included with the transmittal of inservice inspection (ISI) report for the fourth ISI interval (2000-2009), second period, second outage (2005). In order to complete its review of the information in the report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requests the following information:

1. In order to better understand the design of the replacement SGs, provide the following information: tube manufacturer, tubesheet thickness (with and without clad), smallest U-bend radius (including the row of tubes with this radius), and tube pitch.

2. In Section 2.0 of the July 1, 2005, report, the licensee indicated that one tube in SG B was inspected with a rotating probe because it had reported non-conformance.

Describe the condition of this tube (i.e., what prompted the non-conformance report).

3. In Section 2.0, the licensee stated that, as part of its supplemental inspection, it would inspect a 20% sample of reported dings/dents with a voltage greater than or equal to 2 volts. Then, in Section 5.2.1 of the report, the licensee stated that the reporting thresholds for dings/dents in the freespan was 2.5 volts and for dings/dents in the U-bend was 5 volts. Clarify this apparent discrepancy.

4. In Section 5.2.1, the licensee stated that a restricted tube was noted with a 0.620-inch probe diameter. Describe the nature of the restriction. Include a discussion of whether the obstruction was service-induced and the extent and location of the restriction.

5. In Section 5.0, the licensee stated that a comparison was made between all the bobbin signals meeting the current reporting criteria with the 1997 inspection results to determine if the signal was present and if it had changed in characteristics. Discuss the results of this comparison.

6. For SGs A and B, discuss whether a foreign object search and retrieval was performed in each SG and whether the loose parts were removed from the SGs.

If the parts were not removed or the locations were not visually inspected, discuss the results of any evaluations performed to ensure these parts (or suspected parts) would not result in a loss of tube integrity for the period of time between inspections. In addition, discuss whether a visual inspection was performed around the tubes in row 94/column 54 and row 93/column 55 in SG A to confirm that the eddy current signals were from deposits.

Enclosure

7. Provide a discussion if any wear indication at support structures was identified. If so, discuss the number of tubes affected and the severity of the indications.

8. In Section 4.4, the licensee stated that previously identified U-bend areas having tube to tube proximity signals were examined to verify that no change has occurred. Although no changes to these previously identified proximity signals were identified, discuss whether any new tube to tube proximity signals were identified. If so, discuss the number of tubes affected and the implications.