ML072390509

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for Additional Information Regarding the Spring 2006 Refueling Outage 13 Steam Generator Tube Inspections
ML072390509
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/05/2007
From: Vaaler M
NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-2
To: Duncan R
Carolina Power & Light Co
Vaaler, Marlayna, NRR/DORL 415-1998
References
TAC MD5385
Download: ML072390509 (3)


Text

September 5, 2007 Robert J. Duncan II, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPRING 2006 REFUELING OUTAGE 13 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MD5385)

Dear Mr. Duncan:

By letter dated May 5, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061360488), Carolina Power & Light Company, the licensee, submitted the steam generator (SG) tube plugging report for Refueling Outage (RFO) 13 in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Section 4.4.5.5.a. By letter dated April 20, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071160122), the licensee submitted the 12-month SG tube inservice inspection report for RFO 13 in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b. Additional information regarding the SG tube inspections was provided in an inservice inspection report dated August 10, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062300078).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that it needs additional information in order to complete its review. As agreed to by your staff, please respond by October 1, 2007, to the enclosed questions, which were sent electronically on August 15, 2007.

Please contact me at 301-415-3178 if you have any questions on this issue.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marlayna Vaaler, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page

ML071160122), the licensee submitted the 12-month SG tube inservice inspection report for RFO 13 in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b. Additional information regarding the SG tube inspections was provided in an inservice inspection report dated August 10, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062300078).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that it needs additional information in order to complete its review. As agreed to by your staff, please respond by October 1, 2007, to the enclosed questions, which were sent electronically on August 15, 2007.

Please contact me at 301-415-3178 if you have any questions on this issue.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marlayna Vaaler, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page Distribution:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDorlLpl2-2 RidsOgcRp RidsNrrDciCsgb RidsNrrPMMVaaler (hardcopy) RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDorlDpr LPL2-2 R/F Leslie Miller RidsNrrLACSola (hardcopy)

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML072390509 NRR-088 OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA CSGB/BC LPL2-2/BC NAME MVaaler/kac CSola AHiser BMozafari for TBoyce DATE 08 / 31 /07 08 / 31 /07 8/2/2007* 09/ 05 /07

  • by memo Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 cc:

David T. Conley Mr. Robert P. Gruber Associate General Counsel II - Executive Director Legal Department Public Staff NCUC Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 4326 Mail Service Center Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Chairman of the North Carolina Resident Inspector/ Harris NPS Utilities Commission c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 29510 5421 Shearon Harris Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Mr. Tony Gurley, Chair Ms. Margaret A. Force Board of County Commissioners Assistant Attorney General of Wake County State of North Carolina P. O. Box 550 Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Carl Thompson, Chair Public Service Commission Board of County Commissioners State of South Carolina of Chatham County Post Office Drawer 11649 P. O. Box 87 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Mr. Thomas J. Natale, Manager Division of Radiation Protection Support Services N.C. Department of Environment Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and Natural Resources Carolina Power & Light Company 3825 Barrett Drive P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. J. Paul Fulford Mr. David H. Corlett, Supervisor Manager, Performance Evaluation and Licensing/Regulatory Programs Regulatory Affairs PEB 5 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. Chris L. Burton Mr. John H. ONeill, Jr.

Director of Site Operations Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP and Acting Plant General Manager 2300 N Street NW.

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Washington, DC 20037-1128 Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 REFUELING OUTAGE 13 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS DOCKET NO. 50-400 By letter dated May 5, 2006, Carolina Power & Light Company, the licensee, submitted the steam generator (SG) tube plugging report for Refueling Outage (RFO) 13 in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Section 4.4.5.5.a. By letter dated April 20, 2007, the licensee submitted the 12-month SG tube inservice inspection report for RFO 13 in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b. Additional information regarding the SG tube inspections was provided in an inservice inspection report dated August 10, 2006. Based on the review of the information provided by the licensee, the staff has determined that the following information is needed to complete their review.

1. On Page A1-2 of the letter dated April 20, 2007, you indicated that 10 tubes with loose part signals at the top of the tubesheet region on the hot-leg side of SG B were examined with a rotating coil. Please discuss the results of these rotating coil exams (i.e., were loose parts present, what were the loose parts, and were the loose parts removed), and discuss the results of any visual examinations in this area.

In addition, were all known foreign objects (other than the foreign object wedged between Tube Row 60 Column 45 (R60C45) and Tube R59C46 in SG A) in all three SGs removed? If not, please discuss what foreign objects were left inservice and the criteria used to determine which foreign objects are acceptable to leave inservice.

2. Please confirm that the four tubes inspected with a rotating coil in SG A to bound the wedged foreign object were adjacent/nearby to Tubes R60C45 and R59C46 which were plugged.
3. In the letter dated April 20, 2007, you indicated that one tube with a distorted dent signal around the 9th support plate on the cold-leg side of SG B was examined with a rotating coil. Please discuss whether the signal at this location has changed since the baseline inspection. If so, discuss the reason for the change and the basis for concluding no tube-wall degradation existed at this location.
4. Please discuss whether the signal of the one tube examined by rotating coil in a slightly restricted area of the tube within the tubesheet in SG B has changed since the baseline inspection. If so, please discuss the reason for the change. In addition, what was the nature of the signal?
5. In the letter dated April 20, 2007, you indicated that two tubes on the hot-leg side and three tubes on the cold-leg with dent signals, located by the 8th and 9th tube support plates of SG C, were examined with a rotating coil. Please discuss whether the signals at these locations have changed since the baseline inspection. If so, discuss the reason for the changes and the basis for concluding no tube-wall degradation existed at these locations.

Enclosure