ML17228B500
| ML17228B500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1996 |
| From: | Wiens L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Plunkett T FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M95230, NUDOCS 9605290113 | |
| Download: ML17228B500 (5) | |
Text
't (g
- Pir.
Thomas F. Plunkel.
President, Nuclear Division Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno
- Beach, Florida 33408-0420 May 24, 1996
SUBJECT:
STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-ST.
LUCIE UNIT 1 (TAC NO. H95230)
Dear Hr. Plunkett:
As a result of a meeting with members 'of your staff on April 22,
- 1996, we have been reviewing the steam generator inspection and repair criteria for St. Lucie Unit 1.
In order to complete our review, the staff has identified the need for some additional information.
The specific information needed is identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Some of the information has been previously requested by telephone and the request is being documented by this letter.
Responses to each of the questions, except for guestion 6, is requested by June 10,
- 1996, in order to allow adequate review prior to startup of St.
Lucie Unit 1 from the current outage.
The response to question 6 is requested by July 31, 1996. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (301) 415-1495.
Sincerely, Original s'igned'by A. Wiens, -Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects;I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information
- r cc w/enclosure:
See next page Distribution Docket File PUBLIC St. Lucie Reading S.
Varga J. Zwolinski OGC ACRS E. Herschoff, RII p~)('>0/ p)
DOCUMENT NAME:
G: gsTLuclEtsoauEs To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the born C
o Copy without attachment/enclosure "E
~ Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" rs No copy OFFICE MAME DATE PDII-3/LA BCIayton D5/
96 PDII-3/PM LMiens 05/
/96
~ PDII-3/D FMebdon 05/ tI/96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9605290ii3 960524 PDR ADQCK 05000335 P,
'7
~
f I
't
'f I
t
~r.
RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFOfNATION I.
BACKGROUND.
To ensure adequate steam generator tube integrity between inspections, adequate structural and leakage integrity must be demonstrated.
Adequate structural integrity involves demonstrating that all tubes exhibit structural margins consistent with the criteria of Regulatory Guide
- 1. 121.
Adequate leakage integrity includes an evaluation of operational and postulated accident initiated primary-to-secondary leakage.
The radiological dose consequences as a result of primary-to-secondary leakage should be in accordance with the criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 100 and GDC-19.
Adequate structural integrity involves deterministic and probabilistic structural analysis.
Deterministic structural integrity involves reducing the allowable flaw size (per Regulatory Guide 1. 121) by allowances for flaw growth and NDE uncertainty.
All input parameters (e.g., material properties, flaw
- growth, and NDE uncertainty) should be evaluated at a 95/95 confidence level.
Probabilistic structural integrity involves evaluating the distribution of indications detected, the probability of detection, the potential for new degradation to initiate and be detected during the next inspection, the distribution of flaw growth rates, the distribution of NDE uncertainty, and
~
the relationship between flaw size and an NDE parameter (e.g.,
length, depth).
Adequate leakage integrity during normal operation involves establishing limits on the amount of primary-to-secondary leakage.
Adequate leakage integrity during postulated accident conditions can be demonstrated by either ensuring that the degradat'ion does not progress to the point that tubes would leak under postulated accident conditions or that the leakage is within acceptable limits (e.g.,
per 10 CFR 100 and GDC 19).
In-situ pressure testing of the most severe indications detected in an outage provides reasonable assurance of adequate leakage integrity during postulated accident conditions provided the distribution of indications left in service in the prior inspection is similar to the distribution of indications left,in service during the current inspection.
If the in-situ pressure testing cannot be performed or leakage is detected during the test, the potential amount of leakage from the distribution of indications expected at the time of next inspection must be evaluated.
If adequate structural and leakage integrity cannot be demonstrated for the expected distribution of indications at the time of the next inspection, additional tubes may need to be repaired and/or the inspection interval shortened.
II.
QUESTIONS Based on the above discussion, the staff requests the following be submitted:
1.
The repair criteria to be used to disposition eddy current indications (e.g.,
indications at the expansion transitions, drilled hole tube support plate intersections, and in the free span),
The qualification data supporting the sizing capability of indications in the sludge pile and the eggcrate supports (e.g.,
eddy current determined depth and length, destructive examination length, destructive examination average and maximum depth).
The 95/95 confidence level values for growth, NDE uncertainty, material properties, and limiting flaw sizes.
For the limiting flaw sizes, the following should be submitted:
(1) the limiting depth given an infinitely long indication, (2) the limiting length given a through-wall indication, and (3) the correlation relating depth and/or length to the structural integrity of the tube.
The plans for ensuring adequate operational leakage integrity (e.g.,
adopting industry guidance with respect to program implementation and leakage limits).
The method for ensuring adequate leakage integrity under postulated accident conditions.
The distribution of indications detected (length and depth, as appropriate),
the distribution of growth rates (length and depth, as appropriate),
the distribution of NDE uncertainty (length and depth, as appropriate).
A commitment to perform a mid-cycle inspection within six months of startup from the current refueling outage, pending staff review of your mid-cycle inspection criteria and your probabilistic tube integrity assessment.
Hr. T. F. Plunkett Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie Plant CC:
Jack Shreve, Public Counsel Office of the Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Avenue, Room 812 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400 Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7585 S.
Hwy AIA Jensen
- Beach, Florida 34957 Joe Hyers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 J.
R.
Newman
- Morgan, Lewis 8 Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 John T. Butler, Esquire
- Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 4
Mr. Thomas R.L. Kindred County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Hr. Charles Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion Engineering, Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Bill Passetti Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street,'.W.
Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 H. N. Paduano, Manager Licensing 5 Special Programs Florida Power and Light Company P.O.
Box 14000 Juno
- Beach, Florida 33408-0420 W.
H. Bohlke, Site Vice President St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant P. 0.
Box 128 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34954-0128 J. Scarola Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant P.O.
Box 128 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34954-0128 Hr. Kerry Landis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323-0199 E. J.
Weinkam Licensing Manager St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant P.O.
Box 128 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-0128