ML20141G443
| ML20141G443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1997 |
| From: | Dan Dorman NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sellman M Maine Yankee |
| References | |
| TAC-M94930, NUDOCS 9705220363 | |
| Download: ML20141G443 (5) | |
Text
.
t s
.Mayl19. 1997 2-4 Mr.1 Micha' el B. Sellman, ? President. -
~
Maine Yankee Atomic Power' Company
- 329 Bath Road
. Brunswick, ME 04011 l
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - MAINE YANKEE PROPOSED TS CHANGE NO. 169 (TAC NO.:M94930)
Dear Mr. Sellman:
r i
By-letter. dated November 29, 1995, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company requested
~
2
- a. license amendment to change the technical specifications for the Maine Yankee Atomic. Power Station. The proposed amendment'would modify the maximum total' primary-to-secondary leakage from any one steam generator.
It would also modify requirements for unscheduled inspections of steam generator tubes i
following a tube leak.
In order to complete the staff's review, the additional'information provided in the enclosure is required.
Please respond to this request for additional information within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
If you need more time or have questions regarding this request, please call me at (301) 415-1429.
Sincerely, 7
(Original Signed By) 1 Daniel H. Dorman, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Docket No. 50-309
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information
~
[
cc w/ enc 1:
See next page bf*l Distribution:
l Docket File 1
PUBLIC i
PDI-3-Rdg.
/
I i
SVarga l
JZwolinski Np S-C % O Z x u, Region I ESullivan DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DORMAN\\MAINYANK j
To receive a copy of this doctment, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with '
attachment / enclosure W = to copy
]
'0FFICE PDI-3/PM PDIV-2 (A)D\\PE:-3 j
NAME..
D0ormank EM M PMilad DATE 05/19/97-
.05/iS /97 05/'IT /97-0FFICIAL_ RECORD C0)Y j
220059 1
h5220363970519 a~
ADOCK 05000309 A-p PDR
- f.._
.j m
m
_ ~ ~,
9* Uh 1
UNITED STATES J.
. gf g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=
WASHINGTON, D.C. 306664 ret
)
0,,,,,*
May 19, 1997 Mr. Michael B. Sellman, President j
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 329 Bath Road Brunswick, ME 04011
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - MAINE YANKEE PROPOSED TS CHANGE NO. 169 (TAC NO. M94930)
Dear Mr. Sellman:
-By letter dated November 29, 1995, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company requested a license amendment to change the technical specifications for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. The proposed amendment would modify the maximum total primary-to-secondary leakage from any one steam generator.
It would.
also modify requirements for unscheduled inspections of steam generator tubes following a tube leak.
In order to complete the staff's review, the additional information provided in the enclosure is required.
Please respond to this request for additional information within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
If you need more time or have questions regarding this request, please call me at (301) 415-1429.
Sincerely,
$r WJ Daniel H. Dorman, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Docket No. 50-309
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page
Mr. Michael B. Sellman, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company cc w/ enc 1:
Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Mr. Robert W,. Blackmore Manager - Washington Nuclear Plant Manager Operations Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station ABB Combustion Engineering-P.O. Box 408 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Wiscasset, ME 04578 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Michael J. Meisner Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire Vice-President Ropes & Gray Licensing and Regulatory Compliance One International Place Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Boston, MA 02110-2624 329 Bath Road Brunswick, ME 04011 Mr. Uldis Vanags State Nuclear Safety Advisor Mr. Bruce E. Hinkley, Acting State Planning Office Vice-Presidsnt, Engineering State House Station #38 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Augusta, NE 04333 329 Bath Road Brunswick, ME 04011 Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager Yankee Atomic Electric compny Mr. Patrick J. Dostie 580 Main Street State of Maine Nuclear Safety i
Bolton, MA 01740-1398 Inspector Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Regional Administrator, Region I P.O. Box 408 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wiscasset, ME 04578 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Graham M. Leitch Vice President, Operations First Selectman of Wiscasset Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Municipal Building P.O. Box 408 U.S. Route 1 Wiscasset, ME 04578 Wiscasset, ME 04578 Mary Ann Lynch, Esquire Mr. J. T. Yerokun Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
Senior Resident Inspector 329 Bath Road Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Brunswick, ME 04578 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box E Mr. Jonathan M. Block Wiscasset, ME 04578 Attorney at Law P.O. Box 566 Mr. James R. Nebert, Manager Putney, VT 05346-0566 Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 329 Bath Road Brunswick, ME 04011 Friends of the Coast P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556
e RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING STEAM GENERATOR LEAKAGE AND TUBE SVRVEILLANCE RE0VIREMENTS MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-309 1.
The proposed TS Section 4.10.C.4 does not address the unscheduled inspection of tubes that developed leak from tube plugs.
The industry experience has shown that tube plugs fabricated with certain materials do leak.
What is the licensee's inspection plan for tube plugs should they develop leaks?
2.
TS Section 4.10.C.4 states that "(w) hen leaks are discovered, the cause of the leak should be evaluated.....the evaluation should form the basis for additional inspections.....these inspections should include..." This type of wording (i.e., should) is not generally found in TSs.
Please propose wording that is consistent with typical TS language.
3.
TS Section 4.10.C.4. specifies tube inspection in the critical area.
The critical area was defined in 4.10.D.l.(i) as "...(a)n area of the steam generator where degraded and/or defective tubes exist due to a steam generator physical and/or operating characteristic which would promote tube degradation in that identified area."
This definition is not specific for the proposed application and needs to be. clarified.
Please clarify, to the extent possible, (a) the size of a critical area in terms of number of tubes to be inspected, (b) the size of the critical area depending on the type or severity of the degradation mechanism, (c) inspection of a critical area in terms of whether the entire length of the tube will be inspected or only a certain region /section of the tube will be inspected, and (d) consideration regarding establishing a buffer zone beyond the critical i
i area.
)
4.
TS Section 4.10.C.4.(a) states that inspections should include, "(a) review of available historical ECT information to determine whether additional tubes require reinspection and conduct a 20% ECT sample j
inspection (using appropriate methods) of the critical area for that steam generator looking for the same defect mechanism."
4 i
.1 It is not clear from the above statement whether the " additional tubes require reinspection" refers to the tubes that are inside or outside of the critical araa.
If the tubes are outside of the critical area, clarify the inspection sample plan for those tubes that are outside of the critical area.
If the tubes are inside of the critical area, revise the sentence to avoid potential confusion.
1 5.
TS Section 4.10.C.4 specifies an expansion plan if more than 1% of the inspected tubes are found defective. This criteria does not provide an l
expansion sample plan if tubes are fwnd degraded (but not defective) with the same degradation mechanism as that of the leaking tube.
Clarify.
6.
The inspection plan does not address the possibility that tubes are found to be defective due to more than one active degradation mechanism.
l i
Please address this aspect of an unscheduled inspection.
7.
The staff is concerned that if a new degradation mechanism is found in the leaking tube, the same mechanism may degrade tubes outside of the l
critical area.
For example, there may not be sufficient experience to define a critical area without some general inspection sampling outside the region of the leaking tube. Under the proposed sampling plan, the tubes outside of the critical area would not be inspected.
Please address this possibility as it relates to the proposed TS.
q l
1 1
l 1