ML15112A703
| ML15112A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1998 |
| From: | Hoffman S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812020204 | |
| Download: ML15112A703 (8) | |
Text
November 25, 1998 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated July 6, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3. Exhibit A to the application is the Oconee -Nuclear Station License Renewal Technical Information Report (OLRP-1001), which contains the technical information required by 10 CFR Part 54. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in OLRP-1001 and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed questions are from the Electrical Engineering Branch regarding OLRP-1001 Sections 1.5.3, 2.6, 3.2, 3.6, and 5.6.
Please provide a schedule by letter, electronic mail, or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staffs requests for additional information.
Sincerely, Stephen T. Hoffman, Senior Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENTNAME:G:\\SEBROSKY\\RAl2O.WPD OFFICE LA PM:PDLRk PDLR:D NAME LBerr SHoffm CIGrimes_
DATE 11/, L /98 11/ 1S198
. 11/2198 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9812020204 981125 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
Oconee Nuclear Station (
nse Renewal) cc:
Paul R. Newton, Esquire Duke Energy Corporation Mr. J. E. Burchfield 422 South Church Street Compliance Manager Mail Stop PB-05E Duke Energy Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Anne W. Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box629 Mr. Rick N. Edwards Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Framatome Technologies Suite 525 L. A. Keller 1700 Rockville Pike Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Manager, LIS Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Senior Resident Inspector Environment, Health, and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Natural Resources 7812B Rochester Highway 3825 Barrett Drive Seneca, South Carolina 29672 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II Gregory D. Robison U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy Corporation Atlanta Federal Center Mail Stop EC-12R 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 P. 0. Box 1006 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Virgil R. Autry, Director Robert L. Gill, Jr.
Division of Radioactive Waste Management Duke Energy Corporation Bureau of Land and Waste Management Mail Stop EC-12R Department of Health and P. 0. Box 1006 Environmental Control Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 2600 Bull Street RLGILL@DUKE-ENERGY.COM Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Douglas J. Walters County Supervisor of Oconee County Nuclear Energy Institute Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition DJW@NEI.ORG P. 0. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, EXHIBIT A OLRP-1001 Section No.
2.6 Electrical Components 2.6-1 Section 2.6.1 of the application describes the scoping process to identify electrical components subject to an aging management review. This scoping process is based on installed location first and then system function. This differs from the mechanical scoping process which evaluates systems, structures, and components based on 10 CFR 54.4 (a)(1),(2), and (3) criteria. As such, the electrical component scoping is highly dependent upon the accuracy of the identification of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 structures to identify the scope of electrical components for license renewal. With the above electrical component scoping process discuss how the list of electrical components subject to an aging management review is determined to be complete and accurate. In addition, provide a list of the license renewal basis documents that were used for scoping based on location and system function including summary information from each document that supports the process and methodology for electrical scoping.
2.6-2 The scoping of systems, structures, and components required by the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule are similar. Provide a comparison of the scope of electrical systems and components for these rules and describe the significant differences, if any.
2.6-3 Section 2.6.1 of the application identified electrical buses, insulated cables and connections, insulators, and transmission conductors as the electrical components that are subject to an aging management review. 10 CFR 54.21 (a)(1)(i) lists electrical and mechanical penetrations as components that are subject to an aging management review. Identify any non-EQ electrical penetration assemblies that are subject to an aging management review and describe their intended functions.
2.6-4 Section 2.6.6.1.2 of the application identified insulated cables and connections used for fire detectors as part of the fire detection system and excluded them from an aging management review on the grounds that they are replaced based on a performance or condition program. The Commission has concluded in the statements of consideration for 10 CFR Part 54, Section Ill.d.(vi) that fire protection components that perform active functions can be generally excluded from an aging management review on the basis of performance or condition-monitoring programs. Since electrical cables and connectors are identified in 10 CFR 54.21 as being subject to an aging management review because they perform their intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties, describe how the fire detector insulated cables are different from other electrical cables.
2.6-5 For cables that are stored onsite for the purpose of rewiring plant equipment following a design basic event in order to meet the 72-hour cold shutdown requirement, discuss the
2 stressors these cables are exposed to, the resulting aging effects, and the need for aging management review.
2.6-6 Section 2.6.6.5 of the application concludes that resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) do not perform their function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties and thus not subject to an aging management review. The industry guidance for license renewal in NEI 95-10, Revision 0, Appendix B, recommends that RTDs should be subject to an aging management review. Provide an aging management review for the RTDs, or provide a more detailed basis for their exclusion.
2.6-7 Section 2.6.6.6 of the application concludes that thermocouples do not perform their function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties. The industry guidance for license renewal in NEI 95-10, Revision 0, Appendix B recommends that thermocouples should be subject to an aging management review.
Provide an aging management review for the thermocouples or provide a more detailed basis for their exclusion.
2.6-8 Section 2.6.7 of the application states that the electrical component integrated plant assessment is a component-based review where component characteristics are compared to their service conditions. Describe the methodology for determining the service conditions, including measured parameters and operational experience, that the components are exposed to and the criteria that are used to determine whether a component is subject to an aging management review based on its location.
2.6-9 OSS-0274.00-00-0006 dated September 10, 1998, Revision 0, excludes uninsulated ground conductors in Section 11 from an aging management review on the basis of system function. In addition, it is stated that there are no failures of uninsulated ground conductors that could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of any of the functions identified in 10 CFR Part 54.4 (a)(11)(i), (ii), or (iii). Provide the basis for this statement and discuss whether a failure mode and effects analysis was performed to arrive at this conclusion.
3.2 Description of Process to Identify Applicable Aging Effects 3.2-1 Section 3.2 of the application identified thermal, radiation, and moisture as the service environment stressors in which components operate that may result in aging effects of concern for license renewal. In addition to the above identified service environment stressors, discuss the potential aging effects that may occur at Oconee for license renewal due to humidity, water spray, steam, water immersion, chemicals, (including sprays) vibration and seismic motion and operational stressors produced by equipment operation.
3.6 Aging Effects of Electrical Components 3.6-1 Section 3.6.2 of the application discusses stressors such as connection surface oxidation, temperature, radiation, and precipitation and their applicable aging effects on
3 the isolated-phase, nonsegregated-phase, segregated-phase, and switchyard buses.
Discuss whether vibration was considered as a stressor and list any applicable aging effects due to vibration for each of the above electrical buses.
3.6-2 Section 3.6.3 of the application identifies temperature, radiation, and moisture as the principal environmental stressors that insulated cables and connections are exposed to.
Discuss the aging impact of the following operational and environmental stressors as identified in Reference 3.6-1 on the Oconee insulated cables and connectors:
- a.
Electrical stressors Energization at normal voltage levels Transient conditions Partial discharge Effects of contaminants Water treeing Indications of electrical degradation Effects of high-potential testing on XLPE-insulated cables
- b. Mechanical stressors Vibration Gravity-induced cable "creep" and tensile stress Compression Installation related-degradation Maintenance/operation-related degradation
- c. Chemical/Electrochemical stressors Chemical attack of organics and cable decomposition Electro-mechanical attack of metal Loss of fire retardants Effects of oxygen and ozone 3.6-3 Section 3.6.4 of the application discusses cracking, loss of material due to wear, and surface contamination as potential aging effects for insulators. Discuss the aging significance of rust formation where galvanizing is burnt off the insulator due to flash over from lightning strikes and, the inspection process that will detect loss of material due to rust.
3.6-4 Section 3.6.5 of the application lists loss of conductor strength as the only aging effect for transmission line conductors due to corrosion of the steel core and aluminum strand pitting. Since corrosion can lead to loss of material, and ultimate conductor failure, what percent of composite conductor strength would require transmission conductor replacement and how would that parameter be measured?
4 5.6 Time Limited Aging Analyses for Electrical Equipment 5.6-1 Sections 5.6.24 (Viking electrical penetration assemblies) and 5.6.26 (Rosemont RTDs) of the application are based on option (i) of 10 CFR Part 54.21 (c)(1) to demonstrate that the analyses remain valid for the period of extended operation. To illustrate the basis upon which you have concluded that the existing analyses are valid for the period of extended operation, provide calculation OM-360-24 for the Rosemount RTDs and the calculation from OM-337.00-0080-001 for the Viking electrical penetrations. In addition, provide summaries of the thermal and radiation analyses for the Rosemount RTDs.
5.6-2 Sections 5.6.2 (Limitorque actuators), 5.6.10 (Okonite EPRINeoprene cables), 5.6.11 (Samuel Moore EPDM/Hypalon cables), 5.6.12 (Scotchcast 9 and Swagelok quick disconnect assemblies), 5.6.23 (D.G.O'Brien penetrations), 5.6.32 (Barton 764 transmitters) are based on option (ii) of 10 CFR Part 54.21 (c)(1) to demonstrate that the analyses have been projected to the end of the period of extended operation. To illustrate the basis upon which you extended the analyses for the period of extended operation, provide the calculations that document the qualified life for the above items as follows
- a.
Limitorque Actuators - Calculation OSC -7167
- b.
Okonite EPRINeoprene Cables - Calculation OSC - 6530
- c.
Samuel Moore EPDM/Hypalon cables - Calculation OSC - 7055
- d. Scotchcast 9/Swagelok Assemblies - Calculation OSC 7095
- e.
D.G. O'Brien penetrations - Calculation OSC - 7153
- f.
Barton 764 transmitters - Calculation OSC - 7096 5.6-3 The following sections in the application are based on option (iii) of 10 CFR Part 54.21 (c)(1) to demonstrate that the effects of aging on the intended function(s) will be adequately managed for-the period of extended operation:
5.6.3.
Rotork Actuators 5.6.16 EGS Grayboots 5.6.17 EGS Connectors 5.6.18 Joy/Reliance Motors 5.6.19 Louis - Allis Motors 5.6.20 Reliance Motors 5.6.21.1 Westinghouse BS pump motors 5.6.25 Conax RTDs 5.6.27 Weed RTDs 5.6.28 Valcor Solenoid valves 5.6.29 Barton/Westinghouse switches 5.6.31 Gems Delaval transmitters 5.6.33 Rosemount transmitters
5 For each of the above items, provide the following information for the option chosen:
Replacement Describe the activities for replacement equipment qualified to 10 CFR 50.49 and any sound reasons to the contrary (Regulatory Guide 1.89, Rev. 1) that will be used for replacement equipment.
Refurbishment - Describe the activities that will result in the equipment being returned to its original (like new) qualified condition.
On going Qualification/Retesting - Describe the ongoing qualification test program in accordance with IEEE Std. 323-1974, that is being used.
Reanalysis - Provide the analytical methods, data collection and reduction methods, underlying assumptions, acceptance criteria, corrective actions if the acceptance criteria are not met, and the period of time prior to the end of qualified life when reanalysis will be completed.
DISTRIBUTION: Hard copy Docket File PUBLIC PDLR RF M. EI-Zeftawy ACRS T2E26 E-mail*
F. Miraglia P. Shemanski J. Roe D. Matthews C. Grimes T. Essig G. Lainas J. Strosnider G. Bagchi H. Brammer T. Hiltz G. Holahan S. Newberry C. Gratton L. Spessard R. Correia R. Latta J. Peralta J. Moore R. Weisman M. Zobler E. Hackett A. Murphy T. Martin D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis PDLR Staff M. Banic G. Hornseth H. Berkow D. LaBarge L. Plisco C. Ogle R. Trojanowski M. Scott C. Julian R. Architzel J. Wilson R. Wessman E. Sullivan R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI