ML062160574
| ML062160574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/2006 |
| From: | Milano P NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-1 |
| To: | Korsnick M Ginna |
| Milano P, NRR/DORL/LPLA, 415-1457 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD1207 | |
| Download: ML062160574 (6) | |
Text
August 17, 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 - REVIEW OF STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION
SUMMARY
REPORT FOR THE SPRING 2005 OUTAGE (TAC NO. MD1207)
Dear Mrs. Korsnick:
By letter dated July 1, 2005, as supplemented on July 13, 2006, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee), submitted its steam generator (SG) tube inspection summary report for the spring 2005 outage at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its review of the SG tube inspection report. The staff concluded that the licensee provided the information required by the Ginna Technical Specifications and that no additional follow-up is required at this time. The staffs review of the report is enclosed.
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:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
August 17, 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 - REVIEW OF STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION
SUMMARY
REPORT FOR THE SPRING 2005 OUTAGE (TAC NO. MD1207)
Dear Mrs. Korsnick:
By letter dated July 1, 2005, as supplemented on July 13, 2006, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee), submitted its steam generator (SG) tube inspection summary report for the spring 2005 outage at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its review of the SG tube inspection report. The staff concluded that the licensee provided the information required by the Ginna Technical Specifications and that no additional follow-up is required at this time. The staffs review of the report is enclosed.
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:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page Accession Number: ML062160574 OFFICE LPLI-1\\PM LPLI-1\\LA CSGB\\BC LPLI-1\\BC NAME PMilano SLittle AHiser RLaufer DATE 08/14 /06 08/14 /06 08/ 16 /06 08/17/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC LPLI-1 Reading File R. Laufer RidsNrrDorlLpla S. Little RidsNrrLASLittle P. Milano RidsNrrPMPMilano A. Hiser RidsNrrDciCsgb K. Karwoski Y. Díaz-Castillo OGC RidsOgcRp ACRS RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter B. McDermott, R-I RidsRgn1MailCenter cc: Plant Service list
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant cc:
Mr. Michael J. Wallace President R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC c/o Constellation Energy 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. John M. Heffley Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Constellation Generation Group 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 500 Annapolis, MD 21401 Kenneth Kolaczyk, Sr. Resident Inspector R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road 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 Ms. Thelma Wideman, Director Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center 7336 Route 31 Lyons, NY 14489 Ms. Mary Louise Meisenzahl Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 1190 Scottsville Road, Suite 200 Rochester, NY 14624 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza, 10th Floor Albany, NY 12223
Enclosure STAFF REVIEW OF THE 2005 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION REPORT R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, LLC R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 By letters dated July 1, 2005, and July 13, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession Nos. ML051930115 and ML062010230, respectively), R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee), submitted information related to the steam generator (SG) tube inspections during the spring 2005 outage at R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna).
The two SGs at Ginna are designated A and B. In spring 1996, the original SGs were replaced with Babcock and Wilcox International replacement SGs. The replacement SGs have 4765 total tubes that have an outside diameter of 0.749 inch and a wall thickness of 0.044 inch. The tubes are thermally-treated Inconel 690 material and have been hydraulically expanded into the tubesheet. The stainless steel Type 410 tube support plates (TSPs) are lattice grid type. The replacement SGs were placed in operation in June 1996.
The licensee provided the scope, extent, methods, and results of its SG tube inspections in the documents referenced above. In addition, the licensee described corrective actions (i.e., tube plugging) taken in response to the inspection findings.
As a result of the review of these reports, the NRC staff has the following observations:
a.
There is one tube in SG B in which the tubesheet hole on the hot leg side had several scratches on the inside diameter. The hole was buffed during fabrication to remove the sharp edges and it was tubed normally. The tube was inspected with a rotating probe during the outage and no degradation was identified. A non-conformance report was written on this tube during manufacture.
b.
The U-bend area of the tube in row 9 column 121 of SG A does not permit the passage of a 0.620-inch diameter bobbin probe. This condition has been identified in every inservice inspection performed since 1997. The licensee stated that the restriction appears to be the result of a ding. The ding was inspected with a rotating probe and no active degradation was found. The licensee does not suspect the restriction to be service-induced due to the location of the ding. The restriction was not noticed during the preservice inspection since a 0.610-inch diameter probe was used to inspect the tube. A 0.610-inch diameter bobbin probe has been able to traverse the ding in all inservice inspections.
c.
The licensee visually identified a metallic loose part on the periphery of SG B (the part was also detected during the eddy current examination). The licensee tried to remove the loose part but was unsuccessful because the loose part has become firmly wedged between the tubes. The licensee observed that deposits had started to buildup around this location, indicating that the loose part has been there for some time. The licensee stated that no degradation has been found in the surrounding tubes, but four tubes were stabilized and plugged.
d.
There are several tubes in which the U-bend areas are in close proximity. The extent of the tube to tube proximity has not changed (based on eddy current examination). The licensee, however, did not screen the tubes to identify whether additional tubes may be identified as being in close proximity since it was not expected that the extent of condition would change with time. The NRC staff notes that industry experience (ADAMS No. ML042020262) has shown that new cases of tube to tube proximity could develop as the operational time increases.
Based on a review of the information provided, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided the information required by its Technical Specifications. In addition, the staff concludes that there are no technical issues that warrant follow-up action at this time since the inspections appear to be consistent with the objective of detecting potential tube degradation and the inspection results appear to be consistent with industry operating experience at similarly designed and operated units.