ML14317A666
| ML14317A666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/2014 |
| From: | Pickett D Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Pickett D | |
| References | |
| TAC MF4866 | |
| Download: ML14317A666 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 December 17, 2014
SUBJECT:
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO.2-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SPRING 2014 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION RESULTS (TAC NO. MF4866)
Dear Sir or Madam:
By letter dated September 8, 2014, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the licensee, submitted the results of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 Steam Generator Examination Program conducted during the 2014 refueling outage.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing the submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). Based on our discussions, we understand that a response to the RAI will be provided within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Please contact me at (301) 415-1364, or by e-mail at Douglas.Pickett@nrc.gov, if you have any questions on this issue.
Docket No. 50-247
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 1-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPRING 2014 STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTIONS INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO.2 DOCKET NO. 50-247 TAC NO. MF4866 By letter dated September 8, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML14262A059), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted information summarizing the results of the Spring 2014 steam generator tube inspections performed at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2. These inspections were performed during refueling outage 21.
In order to complete the review, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requests responses to the following questions:
- 1. It is indicated on page 2 that the number of effective full-power months (EFPM) for the current inspection period is 22.4. Since the second inspection period begins after 120 EFPM of operation following the first inservice inspection, it would appear that as of the 2014 outage, only 6.3 EFPM had been accumulated in the second inspection period. Please verify the values in the table on page 2.
- 2. The bobbin coil was used to inspect 50 percent of the tubes in all four steam generators.
Please confirm that these inspections included the U-bend region of the tubes in rows 1 and 2.
- 3. Please clarify the extent and pattern of the array probe inspections in the 1st span. For example, was the array probe used to inspect 60 percent of the tubes from the hot-leg tube end to the first support on the hot-leg side of the steam generator (or was the examination from the top of the hot-leg tubesheet to the first hot-leg tube support)? Was the pattern random or did it include all peripheral tubes with some random sampling?
- 4. An anti-vibration bar (AVB) position verification study was performed during this outage.
The conclusion of the study was that the insertion depths had not changed since the baseline examination. Please clarify the purpose of the position verification study. Was the purpose simply to address in-service movement of the AVBs or was it also to address the possibility that the AVBs were not in their correct position per design specification (NRC Information Notice 2005-29 and other foreign operating experience)?
- 5. It appears that 165 indications of wear at the AVBs were detected in 92 tubes during the 2014 inspections. This is less than what was observed during the 2010 inspections.
Since the 2014 inspections included all tubes with prior indications, please discuss any insights on this trend. Please discuss whether the data quality was similar between the two inspections.
Enclosure
- 6. Please discuss whether any dents or dings were inspected with a rotating or array probe.
- 7. For the tubes that were plugged to bound a foreign object that could not be removed, please discuss how it was determined that a foreign object was present (e.g., eddy current inspection, visual, or both). Please discuss the location of the object (top of tubesheet, 1st tube support plate, etc.).
ML14317A666 OFFICE LPL 1-1/PM LPL 1-1/LA ESGB/BC LPL 1-1/BC NAME DPickett KGoldstein GKulesa by BBeasley memo dated DATE 12/10/2014 12/02/2014 11/12/2014 12/17/2014