ML13070A051
| ML13070A051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/2013 |
| From: | Harding T Constellation Energy Group, EDF Group, Ginna |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML13070A051 (7) | |
Text
Thomas Harding Licensing Director CENG a joint venture of Co0 nation 6gr OEnergy-eD R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, New York 14519-9364 585.771.5219 Thomas.HardingJr@cengllc.com March 6, 2013 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Document Control Desk R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 Report of Facility Chanaes. Tests, and Experiments Conducted Without Prior Commission Approval The subject report is hereby submitted as required by 10 CFR50.59(d)(2). The enclosed report (Attachment 1) contains descriptions and summaries of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations conducted in support of proposed changes to the facility and procedures describe in the UFSAR and special tests, from July 2011 through December 2012, performed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Also included is a report with a summary of commitment changes performed in accordance with NEI 99-04, "Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes" during the period from July 2011 through December 2012 (Attachment 2). No additional commitment changes met the threshold for NRC notification.
If there are any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at 585-771-5219 or Thomas.HardingJr@cengllc.com.
Very truly yours, Thom~as L. H rding Attachments:
(1)
Report of Facility Changes, Tests, and Experiments Conducted Without Prior NRC Approval from July 2011 through December 2012 under the Provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 (2)
Report of Commitment Changes from July 2011 through December 2012 Performed in Accordance with NEI 99-04 cc:
W. M. Dean, NRC M. C. Thadani, NRC Ginna Resident Inspector, NRC U)0L
/q k( &- /OO27&(66
-:ý--7 1U.17
ATTACHMENT 1 Report of Facility Changes, Tests, and Experiments Conducted Without Prior NRC Approval from July 2011 through December 2012 under the Provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC March 6, 2013
Report of Facility Changes, Tests, and Experiments Conducted Without Prior NRC Approval for July 2011 through December 2012 under the Provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 50.59 Evaluation No.:
2012-0001 Title of Change:
Revise DA-EE-93-006-08 "Instrument Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification: Undervoltage Relays and Voltmeters on 480 Volt Safeguards Busses", rev 005.
Implementation document:
ECP-12-000447 UFSAR affected Sections:
N/A System:
480 Volt Electrical Distribution System Description of Change:
Revision to DA-EE-93-006-08 "Instrument Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification:
Undervoltage Relays and Voltmeters on 480V Safeguards Busses", rev 005. Revise degraded voltage relay uncertainty analysis using the Monte Carlo method in place of the existing SRSS (square root of the sum of the squares) method.
Evaluation Summary.'
The methodology for calculating the degraded voltage relay uncertainty as currently prescribed in DA-EE-93-006-08, rev 005, is being changed from the existing use of the SRSS method to the Monte Carlo Method. It has been shown in DA-EE-93-006-08, rev 006, that using the Monte Carlo Method is conservative. NEI-96-07, rev 1, November 2000, section 4.3.8, states "In general, licensees can make changes to elements of a methodology without first obtaining a license amendment if the results are essentially the same as, or more conservative than, previous results. RG-1.105 endorses standard ISA-67.04-1994, "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation." ISA-67.04 allows alternate methods of combining uncertainties, including probabilistic and stochastic modeling. The Monte Carlo Method is a probabilistic method that can be used for determining uncertainty.
Each of the eight questions in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(i) through 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) were answered either "NO" or "N/A" such that Nuclear Regulatory Commission permission was not required to make the change.
ATTACHMENT 2 Report of Commitment Changes from July 2011 through December 2012 Performed In Accordance With NEI 99-04 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC March 6,2013
Report of Commitment Changes from July 2011 through December 2012 Performed In Accordance with NEI 99-04 Commitment Change Evaluation No..
2012-001 Source Document:
Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1786, "Safety Evaluation Report, Related to the License Renewal of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant," Response to 01 B2.1.36-1 and letter dated 12/9/2003. Commitment Item Number 39.
Original Commitment:
Perform inspections of thimble tubes for wear and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) each refueling outage.
Implementation schedule was:
RFOs beginning in 2005 : wear of thimble tubes.
RFOs beginning in 2009: SCC of thimble tubes.
Revised Commitment:
Perform inspections of thimble tubes for wear and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) every three (3) refueling outages.
Implementation schedule is:
RFOs beginning in 2015 : wear of thimble tubes.
RFOs beginning in 2015 : SCC of thimble tubes.
Justification Summary:
R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) has performed thimble tube inspections since 1988 due to industry operating experience (OE) specifically in NRC Bulletin No. 88-09, "Thimble Tube Thinning in Westinghouse Reactors". Thimble tube wear inspections were formally performed starting in the 2005 RFO for support of the license renewal period of extended operation. During the 2009 RFO, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) thimble tube inspections were started. A baseline inspection for wear and SCC was performed during the 2011 RFO due to replacement of the thimbles. The justification for this commitment change is based on several components:
During the 2011 RFO all the thimble tubes were replaced. The original ASTM A-213 type 304 design was replaced with ASTM A-213 type 316 with a wear resistant chrome coating on thimble tube areas susceptible to flow induced vibration wear. This chrome coating constitutes a preventive action.
Prior to replacement, a white glove inspection was performed on the new thimble tubes to remove any scratches (potential SCC stress risers) that may have been introduced during manufacturing or handling. This constitutes a mitigative action.
Benchmarking was performed on several plants that had partially or fully replaced the thimble tubes with new tubes that included the wear resistant chrome plating. This benchmarking OE determined that no significant wear was detected after a range of 4 to 12 years of operation.
Commitment Change Evaluation No..
2012-001 (Cont.)
This combination of preventive actions, mitigating actions, and OE suggests there is sufficient evidence to make the proposed changes to commitment item number 39 while maintaining an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Miller, Sharon From:
James, Louise:(GenCo-Nuc) [louise.james@exeloncorp.com]
Sent:
Friday, July 06, 2012 10:57 AM To:
Miller, Sharon
Subject:
RE: Travel for Joe Pacher Chicago O'Hare (or Midway) or Rockford is fine. Most fly into O'Hare (allow 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for travel to O'Hare or Midway - and 45 minutes for Rockford).
I suggest Hilton or Marriott in Rockford - I can send links to the hotels and directions when I return to the office.
He will need to report to the Badge Fab office about 6:30 a.m. (depending on access requirements) in the Training building to complete unescorted access requirements and pick up badge. Then proceed to the Pre-Access Building (PAF) prior to entering the plant. Contacts: Harlem Horton (Badge Fab), Security Office (will be staffed in PAF), and he can always call me at 815-406-2813.
I will be submitting a request for unescorted access and contact you & him regarding details as soon as I return to the office.
Louise James Byron NSRB Coordinator 815-406-2813 From: Miller, Sharon:(Constellation)
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:25 PM To: James, Louise:(GenCo-Nuc)
Subject:
Travel for Joe Pacher Greetings Louise, I was wondering if you could help me with some of the logistics for Joe's upcoming travel to Byron.
Where should I have Joe fly into? Chicago or Rockford?
Do you have a list of hotels in the area?
Where should be reporting to when he arrives and is there a contact name?
I'm assuming he'll be onsite as a visitor?
Anything else you can think of-many thanks!!
I