ML17256A954
| ML17256A954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1982 |
| From: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205250137 | |
| Download: ML17256A954 (6) | |
Text
/m~
REGULATORY FORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY,
.M (RIDS)
'AOCBSSION NBR:8205250137 DOC ~ DATE: 82/05/21 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Planti Uni;t 1i Rochester G
"AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION hlA I'ER g J
~ E ~
Rochester Gas L Electric Corp+
>RHC IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION QRUTCHF IELDi D ~
Operating Reactors Branch 5
SUBJECT:
Submits supplemental info re 820125 steam 'generator tube rupture incidents DI'STRIBUTION CODE:
A001S,.COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
.ENCL SIZE ~
TITLE: General Distribution for after Issuance of Operating License NOTES:NRR/DL/SEP 1cy ~
DOCKET ¹ 05000244 05000244 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAPE ORB ¹5 BC 01 INTERNAL: ELD/HDS4 NRR/DL DIR NRR/DSI/RAB RGN1 COPIES LTTR EN 7
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR/DHFS DEPY08 NRR/DL/DRAB 04 COPIES LTTR ENCL EXTERh'AL>>
- NTIS, NOTES:
09 10 10 02 1
1 1
1 1
1 LPDR NSIC 03 05 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 29 ENCL 7
gP;
\\
5
~
f 0
n y,
"r
~
ft C
s' II g
v Cq,pq
~ >gyW g
f V
) f ill(
N f
)r D
II
'i I'
A b
'<mn(zz ANP IIIIII II
@tier)
IIIIII
> IIIIIIIIIiII ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
~ 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649 roex JOHN E. MAILER Vice Pre+dent TELEPHONE AREA coDE Tie 546-2700 May 21, 1982 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Supplemental Information Steam Generator Tube Rupture Incident R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket. No. 50-244
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
This letter is in response to requests from your staff for additional information.
Actions which were requested and are responses are listed below:
At the 120 EFPD outage discussed in the Steam Generator Evaluation Report, visually inspect the B-Steam Generator Row 45 tubes which were worn by the severed tube which was wedged between Row 45 and the wrapper.
2.
Response
A visual inspection of these tubes was performed during this outage through the 3 inch access port by means of mirrors, with lighting provided by a flashlight.
No tube distress was seen,
- however, the wear areas could not be readily discerned.
A higher resolution inspection in the area of wear will be performed during our 120 EFPD outage, by means of fiber optics or other suitable technique.
Within 6 months, submit a detailed design description of the loose parts monitoring system being installed on the steam generator.
Response
The requested information will be submitted.
PoI IO 820MSoi37 82052i FOR aOOCV OS000244,
S PDR
b f
III
'l I
4 I
W
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORP.
May 21, 1982 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield
~
SHEET NO.
3.
Provide total radiation exposure for the B Steam Generator inspection and repair and the total for this outage.
Response
The radiation exposure for the B-Steam Generator recovery tasks identified in Table 5.1 of our April 26, 1982 submittal and in our April 30 meeting with you, was approxi-mately 350 person-rem.
When some additional support activities which occurred outside high radiation areas are added, the total is 371 person-rem.
By comparison, the total radiation exposure for all B-Steam Generator activities, except for tube sleeving, in the Spring 1981 outage was 121 person-rem.
The total radiation exposure for the 1'982 outage is esti-mated to be 600 person-rem.
By comparison, the total radiation exposure for the 1981 refueling outage was approximately 525 person-rem.
4 ~
Within 6 months, review and identify potential transient and accident scenarios that could produce relatively stagnant flow conditions in a coolant loop and examine the effect of the operator taking actions which would draw the cold water into the vessel.
For these scenarios, review and modify procedures and train operators as necessary to prevent or minimize the flow of cold water into the vessel.
Response
We will initiate such a study with the goal of completing the actions within six months.
Since this study must be performed in conjunction with a number of other
- studies, and since our contractor has not yet had an oppor-tunity to review and plan this effort, the schedule may change.
We will attempt, to minimize any change and will inform you should our schedule change.
Flow of cold water will be prevented or minimized only to the extent consistent with overall safety requirements.
We note that, as discussed in Section 6.4 of our April 13, 1982 submittal and in our April 26, 1982 submittal, the reactor coolant system was shown to be acceptable even assuming no mixing of the 60'F safety injection water.
Very truly yours, Jo n E. Maie gw
4I j S
W II A
~
~ q\\
f.t) < r II