ML20151S743
| ML20151S743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1998 |
| From: | Dave Solorio NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M99212, TAC-MA0293, TAC-MA0294, TAC-MA293, TAC-MA294, NUDOCS 9809090031 | |
| Download: ML20151S743 (5) | |
Text
.
t August 26
'98 Mr. Ch:rles H. Crusa, Vice Pr:sident Nuclear Energy Division Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-47027
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS NOS.1 & 2, COMMODITY REPORT FOR THE FUEL HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND OTHER l
HEAVY LOAD HANDLING CRANES (TAC NOS. MA0293, MA0294, AND M99212) l
Dear Mr. Cruse:
l By letter dated October 22,1997, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submitted for review the Fuel Handling Equipment and Other Heavy Load Handling Cranes (2.2) commodity l
report as attached to the " Request for Review and Approval of System and Commodity Reports for License Renewal." BGE requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review the Fuel Handling Equipment and Other Heavy Load Handling Cranes (2.2) commodity I
report to determine if the report meets the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a), " Contents of application-technical information," and the demonstration required by 10 CFR 54.29(a)(1),
- Standards for issuance of a renewed license," to support an application for license renewal if l
BGE applied in the future. By letter dated April 8,1998, BGE formally submitted its license renewal application.
l The NRC staff has reviewed the Fuel Handling Equipment and Other Heavy Load Handling l
Cranes (2.2) commodity report against the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1),10 CFR i
54.21(a)(3). By letter dated April 4,1996, the staff approved BGE's methodology for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(2) Based on a review of the information submitted, the l
staff has identified in the enclosure, arms where additional information is needed to complete its review.
j Please provide a schedule by letter or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within i
30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with BGE i
prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staff's requests for additionalinformation.
Sin %Md %
David L. Solorio, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate l
Division of Reactor Program Management i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318
Enclosure:
Request for AdditionalInformation cc w/ encl: See next page h' {m}i
)/
, t L
4 DISTRIBUTION:
See next page DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\ WORKING \\SOLORIO\\Fh' RAI LTR
/
OFFICE LA:PDig PDLP/D}M.
P%DRP)(ASC PDLR/DRfMiD 9([
N#.ME SlittV DSolori@ BPrak CGrime@
DATE 8/$98 8g.7/98
[ 8/ /98 \\
8/M/98 9809090031 980826
PDR l
.i.
~ !:
Distribution:
HARD COPY Doches gr1iles PUBLIC PDLR R/F ACRS OGC OECO Rlli 0-16B18 DISTRIBUTION: E-MAIL
- FMiraglia (FJM)
JRoe (JWR)
DMatthews (DBM)
CGrimes (CIG)
TEssig (THE)
GLainas (GCL)
JStrosnider (JRS2)
GHolahan (GMH)
SNewberry (SFN)
GBagchi(GXB1)
RRothman (RLD)
JBrammer (HLB)
CGratton (CXG1)
JMoore (JEM)
MZobler/RWeisman (MLZ/RMW)
SBajwa. (SSB1)
ADromerick (AXD)
LDoerflein (LTD) i BBores (RJB)
SDroggitis (SCD)
MMalloy (MXM)
CCraig (CMC 1)
LSpessard (RLS)
RCorreia (RPC)
RLatta (RML1)
DMartin (DAM 3) i WMcDowell(WDM)
DSolorio (DLS2)
SStewart (JSS1)
PDLR Staff BThomas (BET)
JLyons (JEL)
TCheng (TMC)
Slittle (SLL)
~~
s Mr. Charles H. Cruse Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Unit Nos.1 and 2 cc:-
Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer President Public Service Commission of Calvert County Board of Maryland Commissioners Engineering Division 175 Main Street 6 St. Paul Centre Prince Frederick, MD 20678 Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 James P. Bennett, Esquire Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Counsel Maryland People's Counsel Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 6 St. Paul Centre P.O. Box 1475 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21203 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Patricia T. Birnie, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Co-Director 2300 N Street, NW Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Washington, DC 20037 P.O. Box 33111 Baltimore, MD 21218 Mr. Thomas N. Prichett, Director NRM Mr. Loren F. Donatell Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant NRC Technical Training Center 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway' 5700 Brainerd Road Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Resident Inspector David Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge P.O. Box 287 2300 N Street, NW I-St. Leonard, MD 20685 Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Richard I. McLean Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Power Plant Research Program 1776 l Street, N.W.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Suite 400 Tawes State Office Building, B3 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Annapolis, MD 21401 DJW@NEl.ORG Regional Administrator, Region l Barth W. Doroshuk j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baltimore Gas and Electric Company i:
475 Allendale Road Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant l
King of Prussia, PA 19406 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NEF ist Fioor Lusby, Maryland 20657 i
l
.. -.. - -. - -. -. -. -. - - -.. ~.
M REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS.1 & 2 FUEL HANDLING EQUlPMENT AND OTHER HEAW LOAD HANDLING CRANES COMMODITY REPORT. SECTION 3.2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 Section 3.2.1 - Sconina 1.
Provide the basis for excluding the spent fuel shipping cask wash down pit, a structural component in the spent fuel storage system, and the fuel transfer tube from the scope of license renewal.
2.
Section 3.2.1, pages 3.2-1 and 3.2-2, briefly discuss the spent fuel stainless stee!
storage racks. While the spent fuel storage racks are not specifically identified as subcomponents within the spent fuel storage system that are within scope of license renewal, they ale identified as components subject to an aging management review.
Please clarify the scoping conclusion for the spent fuel storage racks, and provide a cross reference to where the discussion is provided in the license renewal application (LRA).
3.
Section 3.2.1, under New Fuel Storaae and Elevator, states that the new fuel elevators are part of the fuel handling system discussed in a subsequent paragraph in Section 3.2.
Please explain why the system is called the new fuel storage and elevator system, yet the new fuel elevators are described as not being part of the system.
4.
Section 3.2.1, page 3.2-5 includes a statement that there are components in the crane system that are not subject to the guidelines in NUREG-0612 because (1) there is adequate separation between the lift points and safe shutdown equipment, and (2) the load does not qualify as a heavy load. Please provide the distance Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) considers as adequate separation and the basis? Also, explain how adequate separation between lift points and irradiated fuel is considered when scoping the components in the crane system that are subject to the guidelines in NUREG-0612, 5.
Is the spent fuel shipping cask wash down pit reinforced concrete subject to aging management review (AMR)? If not, provide the basis for excluding it from an AMR.
6.
Is the spent fuel shipping cask wash down pit stainless steel liner subject to AMR7 If not, provide the basis for excluding it from an AMR.
8 i.
Enclosure
l
~
3.
]
2 f.
L Section 3.2.2 - Aalna Manmaament
'7.
Provide the basis for concluding there are no potential or plausible age related l
degradation mechanisms (ARDMs) warranting aging management for the fuel transfer tube.
8.
The potential and plausible ARDMs for the fuel handling equipment (FHE) and heavy load handling crane (HLHC) systems have been listed in Table 3.2-1 of Section 3.2 of the license renewal application. Fatigue, wear and mechanical degradation / distortion has been considered a plausible degradation mechanism for the wire ropes. When bent over a sheave, a wire rope's load-induced stretch can cause it to rub against the groove, l
causing wear on the sheave or drum. Discuss the results of your evaluation of the wear of the sheaves and drums in contact with the wire ropes. Also indicate whether or not the sheaves and drums in contact with the wire ropes are subject to an AMR.
g.
Indicate why fatigue, wear, and mechanical degradation / distortion are not considered plausible ARDMs for the clips, bolts and stops in the spent fuel cask handling crane, polar crane (PC), and intake struct Jre semi-gantry crane subcomponents. Additionally, include in the response a discussion as to why mechanical degradation / distortion of clips, bolts an; stops is not plausible in light of the fact that these cranes are subject to accidental loadings during normal operations as described in Section 3.2 on page 3.2-23.
10.
Low cycle fatigue is considered plausible for the PC rails and fatigue has been identified as a potential ARDM for this item. It is stated in Section 3.2 that this ARDM, if unmanaged, could result in unstable crack growth under design loads at the flame-cut hole locations. Discuss your plans for mitigating the potential failure at flame cut holes and the potential fatigue damage in the PC trolley rails and in other FHE and HLHC l
components where flame cut holes might exist.
11.
In Section 3.2.2 of the LRA, Table 3.2-1 lists those FHE and HLHC related structural components and subcomponents (the spent fuel shipping cask stainless steel support platform, IC trash racks stainless steel structural members, spent fuel pool platform stainless steel structural members, spent fuel elevator subcomponent stainless steel structural members, and fuel transfer carriage subcomponent stainless steel structural l
members) that are subject to the AMR and the potential and plausible ARDMs for these i
systems. This table also indicates that the aging effects are not plausible for most of
[
these structural components and subcomponents. Provide a summary of the basis upon which you concluded that the aging effects such as pitting / crevice corrosion, elevated
{
temperature, irradiation, stress relaxation, fatigue, wear, mechanical degradation / distortion, corrosion due to boric acid, are not plausible for those structural components and subcomponents.
.12.
As described in the first paragraph of Page 3.2-3 in Section 3.2.1, during the 1996 Unit 1 i
outage, four fillet welds connecting structural members on the fuel upending machine in the refueling pool failed 'due to low-cycle fatigue. After the implementation of corrective actions, BGE concluded that fatigue will not be plausible for these fuel handling i-equipment subcomponents. Provide the basis for concluding that low cycle fatigue is not plausible aging mechanism for other welds in stainless steel members such as fuel
n'.
~
k' 3
transfer tube supports, new fuel elevator subcomponents and other components listed in Table 3.2-1.
13.
Provide the basis for concluding that (1) only the polar crane rails need to be covered under Group 3 Aging Management, but not other crane rails, and (2) Group 4 Aging Management is applied only to wire ropes, but not to other crane components and subcomponents.
14.
Discuss to what extent " loose bolts" (loose bolts at the connection of steel members, loose anchor bolts at cracked reinforced concrete members, etc.) were considered as eging effects for some of the fuel handling equipment and heavy load handling crane systems?
15.
Provide a summary of the visual inspection procedures applied for the fuel handling equipment and heavy load handling crane systems, including the scope, method, i
acceptance criteria, frequency, and documentation. Altematively, describe the process for establishing these attributes.
16.
Provide a summary of the coatings inspection program that is intended to supplement the existing preventive maintenance tasks associated with the load handling equipment.
Cite any Steel Structures Painting Council guidance that is used in the coatings inspection procedures. Generally describe the repair practices that are used for degraded coating conditions on the load handling equipment, and summarize the past experience with degraded coatings.
I l
4
'