ML102600467
| ML102600467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/2010 |
| From: | Geoffrey Miller Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Chernoff H Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| Miller G, NRR/DORL/LPL1-2, 415-2481 | |
| References | |
| TAC ME3771 | |
| Download: ML102600467 (4) | |
Text
September 17, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
G. Edward Miller, Project Manager /ra/
Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING 2009 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION REPORT (TAC NO. ME3771)
The attached draft request for additional information (RAI) was provided via electronic transmission on September 17, 2010 to Mr. Michael OKeefe, at NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra). This draft RAI was transmitted to facilitate the technical review being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and to support a conference call with NextEra in order to clarify the licensees 2009 steam generator tube inspection report dated April 7, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101030109). The draft questions were sent to ensure that they were understandable, the regulatory basis was clear, and to determine if the information was previously docketed. Additionally, review of the draft RAI would allow NextEra to evaluate and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAI.
This memorandum and the attachment do not represent an NRC staff position.
Docket No. 50-443
Enclosure:
As stated
- Via Memorandum DCI/CSGB/BC LPLI-2/PM NAME MYoder for RTaylor*
GEMiller DATE 9/2/10 9/17/10
Enclosure DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 2009 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION REPORT DOCKET NO. 50-443 By letter dated April 7, 2010 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System Accession No. ML101030109), NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra or the licensee) submitted a report summarizing the results of the 2009 steam generator tube inspections during the thirteenth refueling outage at Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1. To complete its review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff needs the following information.
- 1.
Please provide the results of the secondary side upper bundle in bundle (UBIB) inspection that was performed in SG C.
- 2.
Please provide the results of the plug visual inspection.
- 3.
Please clarify the following regarding the discussion of foreign objects and potential loose part (PLP) indications in SG B (1st paragraph, page 6):
- a. The statement is made that twelve of the PLPs are within eight inches of the top of the tubesheet in SG B, yet Table 3 indicates that this statement might be accurate for all four SGs, not SG B; please clarify.
- b. The statement is made that five additional PLPs signals were found at higher elevations in the SG (presumably SG B) from tube support plate (TSP) 3 to TSP 5, yet Table 3 indicates that the five PLP signals were found from TSP 3 to TSP 6 in SG B; please clarify.
- c. The statement is made that one of these 2 PLP signals had been previously reported in OR11; to what signals in Table 3 does this statement refer to?
- 4.
In Section 6.0, page 8, item 9 directs the reader to Appendix C for tubes identified with potentially elevated residual stress, but Appendix C contains a table of foreign object tracking, not tubes with potentially elevated stress. Please provide a table of all tubes at Seabrook with potentially elevated stress levels (i.e., the 2 sigma tubes). Please discuss whether the axial outside diameter stress corrosion cracking indication at the top of the SG C tubesheet, row 27 column 61 (R27C61), was in a tube with potentially elevated residual stress.
- 5.
Two indications were reported in the tube in R1C32 in SG D. Please confirm that one indication was attributed to pressure pulse cleaning and the other was attributed to a transient loose part. Please confirm that both indications measured 23 percent through-wall. If the above is correct, please discuss how you distinguished that one indication was attributed to pressure pulse cleaning and the other to a transient loose
part. Please, indicate whether a visual inspection of this region been performed?
Additionally, please indicate whether a non-conductive loose part be at this location?