ML070870578
| ML070870578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/2007 |
| From: | Thomas Wengert NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIII-2 |
| To: | Bezilla M FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| Wengert, Thomas | |
| References | |
| TAC MD2145 | |
| Download: ML070870578 (6) | |
Text
March 30, 2007 Mr. Mark B. Bezilla Site Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Mail Stop A-DB-3080 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760
SUBJECT:
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENT REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INTEGRITY (TAC MD2145)
Dear Mr. Bezilla:
By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated May 30, 2006, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company submitted a request to revise the technical specification requirements related to steam generator tube integrity, for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1.
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete the review. The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure to this letter. During a discussion with your staff on March 23, 2007, it was agreed that you would provide a response within 30 days.
The NRC staff considers that timely responses to requests for additional information help ensure sufficient time is available for staff review and contribute toward the NRCs goal of efficient and effective use of staff resources.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Thomas J. Wengert, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
March 30, 2007 Mr. Mark B. Bezilla Site Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Mail Stop A-DB-3080 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760
SUBJECT:
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENT REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INTEGRITY (TAC MD2145)
Dear Mr. Bezilla:
By letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated May 30, 2006, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company submitted a request to revise the technical specification requirements related to steam generator tube integrity, for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1.
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete the review. The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure to this letter. During a discussion with your staff on March 23, 2007, it was agreed that you would provide a response within 30 days.
The NRC staff considers that timely responses to requests for additional information help ensure sufficient time is available for staff review and contribute toward the NRCs goal of efficient and effective use of staff resources.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Thomas J. Wengert, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC LPL3-2 R/F RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 RidsNrrPMTWengert RidsNrrLAEWhitt RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsOgcRp RidsRgn3MailCenter RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsNrrDciCsgb EMurphy, NRR ADAMS Accession Number: ML070870578 NRR-088 OFFICE LPL3-2/PM LPL3-2/LA CSGB/BC LPL3-2/BC NAME TWengert EWhitt AHiser RGibbs DATE 3/30/07 3/30/07 3 /29 /07 3/30/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 cc:
Manager, Site Regulatory Compliance FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Mail Stop A-DB-3065 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760 Director, Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Industrial Compliance Bureau of Operations & Maintenance 6606 Tussing Road P.O. Box 4009 Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-9009 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 210 2443 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4352 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5503 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760 Stephen Helmer Supervisor, Technical Support Section Bureau of Radiation Protection Ohio Department of Health 35 East Chestnut Street, 7th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Carol OClaire, Chief, Radiological Branch Ohio Emergency Management Agency 2855 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, OH 43235-2206 Zack A. Clayton DERR Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, OH 43266-0149 State of Ohio Public Utilities Commission 180 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43266-0573 Attorney General Office of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43216 President, Board of County Commissioners of Ottawa County Port Clinton, OH 43252 President, Board of County Commissioners of Lucas County One Government Center, Suite 800 Toledo, OH 43604-6506 The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich United States House of Representatives 14400 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Gary R. Leidich President and Chief Nuclear Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-19 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Joseph J. Hagan President and Chief Nuclear Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-19 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 David W. Jenkins, Attorney FirstEnergy Corporation Mail Stop A-GO-18 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 cc:
Danny L. Pace Senior Vice President, Fleet Engineering FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Manager, Fleet Licensing FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-2 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Director, Fleet Regulatory Affairs FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-2 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Jeannie M. Rinckel Vice President, Fleet Oversight FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Richard Anderson Vice President, Nuclear Support FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 James H. Lash Senior Vice President of Operations and Chief Operating Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 In reviewing the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Companys (the licensees) submittal dated May 30, 2006, related to revising the technical specification (TS) requirements related to steam generator (SG) tube integrity, for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (Davis-Besse), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the following information is needed in order to complete its review:
1.
Regarding proposed TS 3.4.6.2, is the acronym GPD defined elsewhere in the TS?
The proposed revisions to surveillance requirement 4.4.6.2.1, paragraph e does not make a formal connection between GPD and gallons per day. Is there a concern GPD could be misconstrued as a misprint of GPM? Discuss whether there is a need to clarify what GPD means in TS 3.4.6.2.
2.
Proposed TS 6.8.4 g.3 can be interpreted to mean that for sleeved tubes, less than 40 percent deep flaws in either the parent tube or the sleeve at the sleeve tubesheet expansion joint or at either of the two free span expansion joints are acceptable.
Provide the technical basis as to why up to 40 percent deep flaws in either the parent tube or sleeve are acceptable at these locations, both in terms of adequate leak tightness of these joints and in terms of the ability of these joints to transmit the necessary axial loads for normal operating and accident conditions. Alternatively, describe your plans to revise proposed TS 6.8.4 g.3 such that flaws in the parent tube or sleeve at these locations will be plugged on detection.
3.
Proposed TS 6.8.4 g.3 can be interpreted to mean that sleeved tubes containing flaws in the sleeve with depths equal to or exceeding 40 percent of the nominal sleeve wall thickness may be repaired rather than plugged. Discuss your plans for clarifying TS 6.8.4 g.3 that such tubes are to be plugged, not repaired.
4.
Regarding proposed TS 6.8.4 g.4, the word outboard is used in three sentences. In one sentence, the word outboard is used in the context of roll expansions. The meaning of outboard seems reasonably clear to the NRC staff based on the context of its use in this sentence. However, the NRC staff is concerned that the words second (outboard) sleeve roll in the other two sentences is confusing and could be misinterpreted.
Discuss your plans for revising these words to clarify that you are referring to the free span sleeve roll closest to the sleeve end.
5.
Regarding proposed TS 6.8.4 g.4, the licensee has included the sentence, For tubes that have undergone repair rolling, the previously existing tube and tube roll, outboard of the new roll area in the tubesheet, can be excluded... The words previously existing are confusing since this portion of the tube still exists. Discuss whether you intend to revise the sentence to clarify these words. One acceptable alternative is to state,... the portion of the tube outboard of the new roll area in the tubesheet can be excluded...
6.
Regarding proposed TS 6.8.4 g.4, the licensee has included the sentence, For tubes that have undergone sleeving repairs, the previously existing parent tube, from the original tubesheet roll expansion to the end of the second (outboard) sleeve roll, can be excluded from future periodic SG tube inspections because it is no longer part of the pressure boundary once the sleeve is installed. The words previously existing are confusing since this portion of the tube still exists. Discuss whether you intend to revise the sentence to clarify these words. One acceptable alternative is to simply to delete the words previously existing.
The NRC staff notes that the proposed sentence can be interpreted to mean that the parent tube need not be inspected at the original tubesheet roll expansion or at the two sleeve rolls. If your response to Question 2 above indicates that flaws (of any size) in the parent tube at these locations are potentially relevant to the structural and leakage integrity of the sleeve to tube joints, discuss your plans for providing a revision to the proposed sentence that makes it clear that only the portion of the parent tube between (not including) the upper tubesheet expansion and the closest (inboard) free span sleeve roll is excluded from inspection.
7.
Regarding proposed TS 6.8.4 g.4, the licensee has included the sentence, The installed sleeve, from the sleeve tubesheet roll expansion to the end of the second (outboard) free span sleeve roll, will be included in future periodic SG tube inspections because it is part of the pressure boundary. Because of the use of the words from and to, it is not clear from this sentence whether the inspection is to include the sleeve tubesheet roll expansion and the second (outboard) free span sleeve roll regions. If your response to question 2 indicates that flaws (of any size) in the sleeve at these locations are relevant to the structural and leakage integrity of the tube-to-sleeve joints, discuss your plans for providing a revision to the proposed sentence that clarifies that these locations are to be included in the inspection.
8.
Proposed TS 6.8.4 g.6.b includes the sentence, The new roll area must be free of degradation in order for the repair to be considered acceptable. Describe your plans for revising the word degradation with the word flaws, consistent with TS Task Force Traveler No. 449 and the rest of the proposed TS 6.8.4 g. Does this criterion apply each time a roll joint is inspected or does this criterion only apply at the time the roll repair is performed? If it applies during each inservice inspection, then this criterion is a tube repair criterion. Describe your plans for moving this criterion to TS 6.8.4 g.3, Provisions for SG tube repair criteria. If this criterion applies only at the time the roll repair is performed, what is technical justification for allowing a tube with flaws ranging to 40 percent through wall in the roll repair to remain in service?
9.
Proposed TS 6.8.4 g.7 and 6.8.4 g.9 deal with special interest tube inspections.
Discuss your plans for moving these requirements to be part of TS 6.8.4 g.4, Provisions for SG tube inspections.