ML17264A575
| ML17264A575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1996 |
| From: | Vissing G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-M92679, NUDOCS 9608070206 | |
| Download: ML17264A575 (10) | |
Text
pe RECC Cg p
~o Cy 0
~ 4 0
0
~
I gO
~+*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 August 1, 1996 Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Vice President, Nuclear Operations Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89.East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649
SUBJECT:
CLOSEOUT FOR ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (RG&E)
RESPONSE
TO GENERIC LETTER 92-01, REVISION 1, SUPPLEMENT 1
FOR THE R.
E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TAC NO. M92679)
Dear Dr. Mecredy:
On May 19, 1995, the NRC issued Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1
(GL 92-01, Rev.
1, Supp.
1), "Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity."
In GL 92-01, Rev.
1, Supp.
1, the NRC requested that nuclear licensees perform a
review of their reactor, pressure vessel structural integrity assessments in order "to identify, collect, and report any new data pertinent to [the]
analysis of [the] structural integrity of their reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) and to assess the impact of that data on their RPV integrity analyses relative to the requirements of Section 50.60 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.60),
10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 (which encompass pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and upper shelf energy (USE) evaluations),
and any potential impact on low temperature overpressure (LTOP) limits or pressure-temperature (P-T) limits."
More specifically, in GL 92-01, Rev.
1, Supp.
1, the NRC requested that addressees provide the following information in their responses:
(1) a description of those actions taken or planned to locate all data relevant to the determination of RPV integrity, or an explanation of why the existing database is considered complete as previously submitted; (2) an assessment of any change in best-estimate chemistry based on consideration of all relevant data; (3) a determination of the need for the use of the ratio procedure in accordance with the established Position 2. 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, for those, licensees that use surveillance data to provide a basis for the RPV integrity evaluation; and (4) a written report providing any newly acquired data as specified above and (1) the results of any necessary revisions to the evaluations of RPV integrity in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, 10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and any potential impact on the LTOP and P-T limits in the technical specifications, or (2) a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.
i"7Qg<)A 9608070206 96080i PDR ADQCK 05000244 P
lt
Robert Mecredy Revised evaluations and certifications were to include consideration of Position 2. 1 of RG 1.99, Revision 2, as applicable, and any new data.
The information in Reporting Item (1) was to be submitted within 90 days of the issuance of the GL.
The information in Reporting Items (2) (4) was to be submitted within 6 months of the issuance of the GL.
The NRC staff has noted that RG&E submitted the information requested in Reporting Item (1) on August ll, 1995, and requested in Reporting Items (2)
(4) on November 20, 1995.
Since RG&E has submitted the requested information and has indicated that the previously submitted evaluations remain valid, the staff considers the RPV integrity data for the R:
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant to be complete at this time and has closed TAC No. N92679.
The staff has noted that the most recent reactor vessel integrity assessment for the R.
E. Ginna'uclear Power Plant is covered by the scope of Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Topical Evaluation BAW-2257, Revision 1.
This topical report was the subject of an April 30, 1996 meeting between the NRC staff and representatives of the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG).
The topical report indicates that all licensees addressed in the report have determined the best estimate copper and nickel contents of their plant's'beltline and surveillance welds.
The report also indicates that the ratio procedure described in Position 2. 1 (pages 1.99-3 and 1.99-4) of RG 1.99, Rev. 2,. need not be applied to the PTS assessments and USE assessments of RPV beltline welds made from Linde 80 fluxes.
At a meeting on'pril 30, 1996, representatives of the BWOG provided the bases for the conclusions in the topical report.
The staff informed the BWOG personnel that the information presented was insufficient to support the owners group's proposal.
The BWOG representatives indicated that the owners group would consider performing additional work to address the staff's
- concerns, and would consider submitting another topical report for NRC review.
The staff does not consider the BWOG proposal to be acceptable at this time.
The topical report also included analyses to demonstrate that application of the ratio procedure would not cause the RT values for the limiting materials in B&W fabricated RPVs to exceed the PTS screening criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.61.
- However, the report did not address potential impact of applying the ratio procedure to the development of pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP limits.
Therefore, you are requested to provide an assessment of the application of the ratio procedure, as described in Position 2. 1 of RG 1.99, Revision 2 (Hay 1988), to your pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP limits.
This assessment should include an
I
Robert Mecredy August 1, 1996 evaluation relative to the margins specified in applicable codes and standards (i.e., Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code).
You are requested to provide this assessment by December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
/s/
Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1'ivision of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244 cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File
.PUBLIC PDI-1 Reading SVarga JZwolinski JMitchell SLittle GVissing OGC ACRS LDoerflein, RGN-I DMcDonald JStrosnider DOCUMENT NAME:G:iGINNAiM92679.RVS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment encl ure "E" = Co y with attachment enclosure "N"'= No co y OFFICE LA:PDI-1 E
PH:PDI-1 0:PDI-1 HAHE SLittl GVissing:aw JHitchell DATE 08/
/96 08/i/ /96o 08/
/96 0
icosa Recor Copy 08/
/96 08/
/96
Robert Mecredy evaluation relative to the margins specified in applicable codes and standards (i.e., Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code).
You are requested to provide this assessment by December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Guy S. Vissing, Se ior Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244 cc:
See next page
V I
~
~
Dr. Robert C. Mecredy R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CC:
Peter D. Drysdale, Senior Resident Inspector R.E.
Ginna Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, NY 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. F. William Valentino, President New York State
- Energy, Research, and Development Authority 2 Rockefeller Plaza
- Albany, NY 12223-1253 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Nicholas S.
Reynolds Winston 8 Strawn 1400 L St.
N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Hs.
Thelma Wideman,
- Director, Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center
.7336 Route 31
- Lyons, NY 14489 Ms. Mary Louise Meisenzahl Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 111 West Fall Road, Room 11 Rochester, NY 14620
P
(
I l