ML15112A711
| ML15112A711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1998 |
| From: | Hoffman S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812030131 | |
| Download: ML15112A711 (6) | |
Text
November 30, 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 Reactor Systems Branch regarding OLRP-1 001 Sections 2.4, 2.5.5, and 2.5.7.
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, OriginalSOW gy Stephen T. Hoffman, Senior Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and 50-287
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\SEBROSKY\\RA125.WPD OFFICE LA PM:PDLR PDLR:D NAME LBerry SHoffm ClGrimes DATE 11/.30/98 11/30/98 11/ 198 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9812030131 981130 PDR ADOCK 05000269.
P PDR)
Oconee Nuclear Station 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, Ill, 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. Box 629 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 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Washington, DC 20006-3708 P. 0. Box 2006 DJW@NEI.ORG Clayton, GA 30525
DISTRIBUTION: Hard cpy Docktt.EileI, PUBLIC PDLR RF M. EI-Zeftawy ACRS T2E26 F. Miraglia M. Razzaque 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
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, EXHIBIT A OLRP-1001 Section No.
2.4 Reactor Coolant System Mechanical Components and Class 1 Component Supports 2.4-1 Dwg. #s OLRFD-107A-1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 of the submittal shows the pressurizer quench tank with the sparger. Please clarify if the sparger nozzles are within the scope of license renewal. If they are not, provide the basis for their exclusion.
2.4-2 Page 4-51, Section 4.5.1.3.1, Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
[updated December 31, 1997], indicates that lifting lugs are provided for remote handling of the plenum assembly (Reactor Vessel Internals). These lifting lugs are welded to the cover grid. It was not clear from the submittal (Fig. 2.4-5) if these lifting lugs and attachment welds are within the scope of license renewal. Discuss whether these items are within the scope of license renewal or provide a basis for their exclusion.
2.4-3 Page 5-44, Section 5.3.1, UFSAR [updated December 31, 1997], indicates that guide lugs are welded inside the reactor vessel's lower head which limit a vertical drop of the reactor internals and core to %inch or less and prevent rotation about the vertical axis in the unlikely event of a major internals component failure. It was not clear from the submittal (Figs. 2.4-2, 3 and 4) if these lugs and attachment welds are within the scope of license renewal. Discuss whether these items are within the scope of license renewal or provide a basis for their exclusion.
2.4-4 Page 4-10, Section 4.2.2.1.5 (UFSAR) [updated December 31, 1997], indicates that attached to the upper end fitting (Reactor Vessel Internals) is a holddown spring, which provides a positive holddown margin to oppose hydraulic forces resulting from the flow of the primary coolant. It was not clear from the submittal (Fig. 2.4-5) if this spring is within the scope of license renewal. It is feasible that the holddown spring may loose its required force with extended age. Discuss whether this item is within the scope of license renewal or provide a basis for its exclusion.
2.4-5 Page 5-43, Section 5.3.1, UFSAR [updated December 31, 1997], indicates that test taps are provided in the annulus between the two O-rings to afford a means to leak test the vessel closure seal. It was not clear from the submittal (Figs. 2.4-2, 3, and 4) if these test taps are within the scope of license renewal. Discuss whether these items are within the scope of license renewal or provide a basis for their exclusion.
2.4-6 Figures 2.4-2, 3 and 4 of the submittal show the reactor vessel. However, these figures do not show the closure head of the vessel. The following two questions are relevant to the vessel head:
Enclosure
2 (a) The lifting lugs, which are used to lift the vessel head are welded to it. Please indicate if these lifting lugs and attachment welds are included within the scope of license renewal. If so, provide a cross reference to where these are addressed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion.
(b) In response to the Three Mile Island Lessons Learned Report, NUREG-0737, Item II.B.1, vents were to be added to the reactor vessel and to the pressurizer head. One of the intended functions of the vents is to ensure core cooling during loss-of-coolant accident. Please indicate if these vent systems are within the scope of license renewal. If so, provide a cross reference to where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion.
2.4-7 Table 2.4-4 of the submittal lists RCS components and their intended functions.
Discuss why the following intended functions, for the specified components, were not considered as intended functions to be maintained for license renewal. Provide bases for your determinations. The components and their intended functions are given below:
Component Intended Function(s)
Reactor Vessel Internals Capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition.
Once Through Steam Generator Provide heat removal under abnormal operating conditions.
Additionally, verify that reactor coolant pumps do not have any intended functions credited for design basis events that meet the requirements of 10 CFR 54.4, other than the intended function cited for license renewal, i.e., pressure boundary function of the pump casing and flow-related coastdown function associated with the RCP flywheel, and are therefore not considered within the scope.
2.5.5 Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) 2.5.5-1 Page 6-38, Section 6.3.2.5, UFSAR [updated December 31, 1997], indicates that all components with surfaces in contact with water containing boric acid are protected from corrosion and deterioration. With the exception of the borated water storage tank, the major components in low pressure injection are constructed of stainless steel. The borated water storage tank is made of carbon steel with an interior phenolic coating to protect it from corrosion and deterioration. Clarify if the coating is relied upon to ensure the intended function of the borated water storage tank for the period of extended operation. If it is, describe the program to maintain the coating. If not, provide the basis for its exclusion.
2.5.5-2 Boric acid solution is stored in heated and insulated tanks and is piped in heat-traced and insulated lines to preclude precipitation of the boric acid. Clarify if the insulation material is within the scope of license renewal. If so, provide a cross reference to
3 where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion.
2.5.5-3 Containment sump suctions of the ECCS pumps are enclosed by particulate screens, whose intended function is to prevent debris from entering into the pumps. Clarify if these screens are within the scope of license renewal? If so, provide a cross reference to where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not provide the basis for their exclusion. Additionally, provide a discussion of the intended functions these items might perform for license renewal.
2.5.5-4 Flow restriction orifices are installed in several pipes in order to limit the mass flow rate during an accident. Clarify if these orifices are within the scope of license renewal? If so, provide a cross reference to where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion. Additionally, provide a discussion of the intended functions these items might perform for license renewal.
2.5.5-5 Dwg. #s OLRFD-103A-1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 of the submittal shows the Low Pressure Injection system that provides water to the Reactor Building (Containment) Spray system. Clarify if the nozzles of this spray system are within the scope of license renewal? If so, provide a cross reference to where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion.
2.5.7 Process Auxiliaries 2.5.7-1 Table 2.5-11 of the submittal lists the components in the process auxiliaries and their intended functions. Discuss why the following intended function, for the specified component, was not considered as an intended function to be maintained for license renewal. Provide the basis for your determination. The component and its intended function is given below:
Component Intended Function(s)
Spray nozzles Ability to spray water as designed 2.5.7-2 Flow restriction orifices are installed in several pipes in order to limit the mass flow rate during an accident. Clarify if these orifices are within the scope of license renewal. If so, provide a cross reference to where these items are discussed in the submittal. If not, provide the basis for their exclusion. Additionally, provide a discussion of the intended functions these items might perform for license renewal.