ML15218A156
| ML15218A156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1997 |
| From: | Hoffman S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M99121, TAC-M99122, TAC-M99123, TAC-M99141, NUDOCS 9711200381 | |
| Download: ML15218A156 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES 0
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 14, 1997 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 27679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SOCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, & 3, TOPICAL REPORT SECTIONS FOR THE REACTOR BUILDING (TAC NOS. M99121, M99122, M99123, AND M99141)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated March 12, 1997, Duke Power Company (Duke) submitted for review, "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3 License Renewal - Technical Information Topical Report," OLRP 1001, Revision 1, February 1997. Duke requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff review the sections indicated in the letter that evaluate the Oconee reactor buildings.
Based on a review of the information submitted, the staff has identified in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review.
As requested, the staff reviewed OLRP-1001 Section 2.3, "Reactor Building," and Section 3.3, "Reactor Building." Reviews of Section 1.4 regarding the methodology for identifying time limited aging analyses and the methodology portion of Section 2.3 for identifying reactor hijildina structures and components subiect to an aging management review were not performed at this time. The staff will review these methodologies in conjunction with its review of Section 2.2, "Methodology to Identify Systems, Structures, and Components Within the Scope of License Renewal," when a completed Section 2.2 is submitted.
The staff disagrees with Duke's finding that there are no applicable aging effects for containment concrete components. The staffs position is provided in the enclosed request for information (RAI) Number 3.3-1.
9711200381 971114 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR JIII 1111111 1111111 1 11111 1 11 1 1 G
1 F
6 F
e*
W. McCollum
-2 Within 30 days of the date of this letter, Duke is requested to inform the staff of its plans and schedule for responding to the requests for information.
Sincerely, Stephen T. Hoffman, Sr. 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:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr. Ed Burchfield Duke Power Company, PB05E Compliance 422 South Church Street Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Ms. Karen E. Long Washington, DC 20005 Assistant AttorneyGeneral North Carolina Department of Mr. Robert B. Borsum Justice Framatome Technologies P. 0. Box 629 Suite 525 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. 0. A. Copp Licensing - ECO50 Manager, LIS Duke Power Company NUS Corporation 526 South Church Street 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Richard Fry, Director Senior Resident Inspector Division of Radiation Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Department of Route 2, Box 610 Environment, Health, and Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Natural Resources P. 0 o 2nv7687 Regional Administrator, Region II Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Vice President, Oconee Site Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Max Batavia, Chief Seneca, South Carolina 27679 Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County WaShalla, South Carolina 29621
HARD COPY
.Docket File PUBLIC PDLR R/F DLaBarge, 0-14H25 OEDO RIV Coordinator, 0-17G21 E-MAIL:
S. Collins/F. Miraglia (SJC1/FJM)
R. Zimmerman (RPZ)
J. Roe (JWR)
D. Matthews (DBM)
S. Meador (SAM)
R. Wessman (RHW)
J. Strosnider (JRS2)
S. Droggitis (SCD)
S. Peterson (SRP)
G. Lainas (GCL)
B. Morris (BMM)
J. Moore (JEM)
G. Mizuno (GSM)
G. Holahan (GMH)
B. Sheron (BWS)
M. Mayfield (MEM2)
A. Murphy (AJM1)
H. Brammer (HLB)
L. Shao (LCS1)
G. Bagchi (GXB1)
R. Johnson (REJ)
H. Berkow (HNB)
S. Shaeffer (SMS)
J. Vora (JPV)
C. Craig (CMC1)
J. Calvo (JAC7)
B. Gleaves (BCG)
PDLR Staff
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SECTIONS 2.3 AND 3.3 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION LICENSE RENEWAL - TECHNICAL INFORMATION, TOPICAL REPORT OLRP-1001, REVISION 1, FEBRUARY 1997 Section 2.3 2.3-1.
For components, including weldments, which are identified as outside the scope of the evaluation boundary for the reactor building, please clarify where those components will be addressed in the Oconee Report OLRP-1001.
2.3-2.
Section 2.2.III.B of the working draft standard review plan for license renewal (SRP-LR) dated September 1997, discusses that plant items that are intended to be used during normal operation and maintenance of a system or structure and are not replaced based on calendar frequency or a predetermined qualified life. These items include sealing materials, gaskets, o-rings, and packing. The SRP-LR discusses that the applicant may either (1) identify these items as subject to aging management review, or (2) identify that degradation of these items may cause aging effects on the structure and component in which these items are installed and manage those aging effects accordingly. However, a plant item that specifically performs an intended function necessary for meeting 10 CFR 54.4 is to be identified as subject to an aging management review for renewal. Please discuss the treatment of items, such as tendon grease, seals, and joint sealants, for Oconee.
2.3-3. Section 2.3.1.3 of the report states, "the lower tendon access gallery does not support the intended functions of the Containment and is therefore not within the scope of the Rule." Please provide additional information regarding the seismic classification of the gallery and, if not seismic Class I, the effects of gallery degradation on the integrity of the reactor building.
2.3-4. Please provide a discussion regarding "miscellaneous attachments to the liner" as stated in Section 2.3.2.2 of the report. Also provide a figure showing some typical details and the "evaluation boundary."
2.3-5. Please discuss why Section 2.3.2.5 of the report does not indicate that the sump piping has an intended function to maintain the leak-tight boundary of the containment.
2.3-6. Please clarify the evaluation boundary for the electrical penetrations discussed in Section 2.3.2.6 of the report. Does it include all elements subject to containment internal pressure? If not, please justify any exclusion.
2.3-7.
Section 2.3.2.5 of the report indicates that there are no expansion bellows used on mechanical penetrations. Please confirm that bellows are not used on any other type of Oconee containment penetration.
I
Section 3.3 3.3-1.
Section 3.3.1.1.2 of the report concludes that there are no applicable aging effects for containment concrete components. The proposed justification is largely based on concrete construction meeting design codes and standards. The report indicated that NUREG-1522 and NUREG/CR-6424 were reviewed. However, NUREG-1522, Appendix A, documented containment concrete degradation in plants constructed to similar codes and standards. In addition, NUREG/CR-6424 states, "The performance of reinforced concrete structures in Nuclear Power Plants has been good.... However, as these structures age, incidences of degradation due to environmental stressor effects are likely to increase to potentially threaten their durability." Further, 10 CFR 50.55a requires concrete containments be inspected according to Subsections IWE and IWL of the ASME Section XI Code. Section 3.3.11.B of the SRP-LR contains information on applicable aging effects for concrete containment components. Thus, the staff disagrees that there are no applicable aging effects on containment concrete components. The applicant should revise the assessment of applicable aging effects for Oconee concrete components and propose aging management for the applicable aging effects.
3.3-2.
Discuss any containment steel components that are not protected by coatings or encased in concrete. Describe how corrosion will being managed for those components?
3.3-3.
The report indicates that Subsections IWE and IWL of the ASME Section XI Code are necessary for managing aging for renewal. Please specify the code "examination categories" for all of the referenced ASME Section XI inspections relied on for aging management.
3.3-4.
The report discusses that Section Xl "will continue to be maintained through the consensus process of the ASME Code" and are "expected to be effective in managing" aging during the period of extended operation. In addition, h* report states, "the Commission's process of reviewing Editions and Addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and incorporating them into 50.55a with limitations and modifications as required, provide reasonable assurance that required activities will adequately manage the aging effects." The report should identify the specific edition and addenda of the ASME code for staff review. Also, if certain paragraphs of 10 CFR 50.55a are relied on to mange aging for renewal, these paragraphs and the year of publication should be cited.
3.3-5.
Discuss the aging management programs to be relied on for inaccessible areas of steel components regarding corrosion and cracking.
3.3-6.
Section 3.3.2.2.1 of the report discusses loading cycles for the liner. However, Section 3.3.1.1.1.2 of the report indicates that "the periodic Type A Integrated Leak Rate tests are the major sources of load changes." Where are the Type A loads included in Section 3.3.2.2.1?
2
3.3-7.
Section 2.3.2.2 of the report indicates that the polar crane brackets and other miscellaneous attachments are within the scope of this report. Discuss whether there are periodic loads on these structures that need to be evaluated as part of the time limited aging analysis in Section 3.3.2.2.1.
3.3-8.
Section 3.3.2.2.1 of the report indicates that the projected number of heatup and cooldown cycles would not exceed the originally assumed 360 number even for 60 years. Please provide information on the number of heatup and cooldown cycles already experienced and the methodology for projecting them to 60 years.
3.3-9.
Fretting and lockup of the personnel airlock and equipment hatch could result from mechanical wear. Provide appropriate aging management for these and any other aging effects applicable to the airlock.
3.3-10.
Discuss whether expansion joint sealants have ever deteriorated causing degradation of the liner below the floor and, if so, what actions were taken.
3.3-11.
Discuss whether corrosion has ever been observed in crevices where the coating ends and steel is exposed and, if so, what actions were taken.
3.3-12. Was a corrosion allowance specified for the liner? Describe any liner thickness surveys that have been conducted and, if conducted, the estimated corrosion rate from those surveys?
3.3-13. Section 4.5 of the SRP-LR considers metal corrosion allowance as a time-limited aging analysis. Discuss whether this is applicable to the containment steel components.
3.3-14.
Section 3.3.3.1.2 of the report indicates that "minor grease leakage through the concrete shell and at anchorages have been observed.... The grease leakage is being monitored and there exists no evidence to date to show that the bulk-fill grease has any deIrimental effect on concrete." P riUVeU aUUItIol in fm -ation on h owv.
th.a gi ngg effects of grease leaked into concrete is being managed and discuss how the elements in Section 3.0.II.C of the SRP-LR are met by the program. Also, discuss the potential effects of grease on the shear load capability of the concrete structure.
3.3-15. Section 3.3.III.C.4 of the SRP-LR indicates that an increase in temperature increases the prestress loss in prestressed tendons. It identifies sun exposure or proximity to hot penetrations as potential contributors. Please discuss management of this potential aging effect for renewal.
3.3-16.
Section 3.3.3.1.3.1 of the report uses words "similar" and "similarities." Please discusses the intent of this wording and whether there are any differences between the selection of words.
3
3.3-17.
Section 3.3.3.1.1 of the report indicates that loss of materials due to corrosion is the only applicable aging effect for tendons. However, other aging effects have been observed at operating plants such as stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen embrittlement, stress relaxation of prestressing wire, and shrinkage creep that could result in loss of prestress. Revise the report to discuss these additional potentially applicable aging effects for the tendons.
3.3-18.
Section 3.3.2.1.1.4 of the report discusses Oconee's "existing coating maintenance procedures." However, Table 3.3-1 of the report does not include this as an aging management program for renewal. If coatings are credited for preventing or minimizing corrosion of the coated steel, the coating maintenance procedure is considered an aging management program.
Please clarify whether the coating procedure is credited as an aging management program, and. if so, discuss how the elements in Section 3.0.1I.C of the SRP-LR are met.
4
W. McCollum
-2 Within 30 days of the date of this letter, Duke is requested to inform the staff of its plans and schedule for responding to the requests for information.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Stephen T. Hoffman, Sr. 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:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\RAl2A.LTR (S. Hoffman/AVL Disk #2)
- See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE PM:PDL E SC:PDLR E D:PDLR E
NAME SHoffmanravi PTKuo* SSL for CGrimes DATE 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14 /9' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY