ML20151X785
| ML20151X785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1998 |
| From: | Dave Solorio NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M99215, TAC-MA0295, TAC-MA0296, TAC-MA295, TAC-MA296, NUDOCS 9809170250 | |
| Download: ML20151X785 (6) | |
Text
..
I l
September 1,1998 Mr. Chirl;s H. Crusa, Vice Przsid:nt Nuclar Entrgy Division i
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 1650 Calw.rt Cliffs Parkway i
Lusby, MD 20657-47027
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVil'N OF THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 & 2, INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (TAC NOS. MA0295, MA0296, AND M99215) l
Dear Mr. Cruse:
l By letter dated October 22,1997, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submitted ter l
review the Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment technical 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 Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment technical report to determine if the report meets the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a), " Contents of application-technical i
information," and the demonstration required by 10 CFR 54.29(a)(1), " Standards for issuance of a renewed license," to support an application for licenss renewal if BGE applied in the future.
By letter dated April 8,1998, BGE formally submitted its license renewal application.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment
. technical report against the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1) and 10 CFR 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). By letter dated August 21,1998, the NRC forwarded requests for additional information on scoping to BGE in order to give BGE additional time to prepare its responses while the staff was continuing its review of the subject report. Based on the continuted review of Section 5.1, the staff has identified in the enclosure, areas where additional information related to aging management is needed to complete its review.
Please provide a schedule by letter or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within j
30 days of receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with BGE prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staff's requests for additional information.
Sincerely, WBy David L. Solorio, Project Manager 9909170250 990901 License Renewal Project Directorate gDR ADOCK 050003 7 Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page l
See next page h
gy
[
DISTRIBUTION
- See previous concurrence t
DOCUMENT NAME.G:\\ WORKING \\SOLORIO\\AFW RAl2.LTR Q{
i OFFICE LA:PDI-1 PDLR/DRPM
%R/DRP)A:ASC PDLR/DRPM:D k
NAME SLittle DSolorio BPrag CGrimedy DATE 8/28 /98*
// /98
[ 8/ /h
$/t /98 7
$^P158
~-
____m
'I Mr. Charles H. Cruse Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Powei Plant l
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 i
Commissioners Engineering Division 175 Main Street 6 St. Paul Centre l
Prince Frederick, MD 20678 Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 j
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 l
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 Saltimore, MD 21218 Mr. Thomas N. Prichett, Director l
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 j
Resident inspector David Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge P.O. Box 287 2300 N Street, NW St. Leonard, MD 20685 Washington, DC 20037 l
' Mr. Richard I. McLean Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Power Plant Reser.ch Program 1776 i 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 i Barth W. Doroshuk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 475 Allendale Road Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant King of Prussia, PA 19406 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NEF ist Floor Lusby, Maryland 20657
)
I i
I
_ ___ ~
p UNITED STATES i
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'g' WASHINGTON. D.C. 30086 4001 September 1,1998
+
Mr. Charles H. Cruse, Vice President i
Nuclear Energy Division l
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway l
Lusby, MD 20657-47027
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 & 2, INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE AUXlLIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (TAC NOS. MA0295, MA0296, AND M99215)
Dear Mr. Cruse:
By letter dated October 22,1997, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submitted for review the Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment technical 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 Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment technical report to determine i
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 BGE applied in the future.
By letter dated April 8,1998, BGE formally submitted its license renewal application.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Auxiliary Feedwater System (5.1) integrated plant assessment technical report againLt the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1) and 10 CFR Si.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). By letter dated August 21,1998, the NRC forwarded requests for additional information on scoping to BGE in order to give BGE additional time to prepare its responses while the staff was continuing its review of the subject report. Based on the continuted review of Section 5.1, the staff has identified in the enclosure, areas where additionalinformation related to aging management is needed to complete its review.
Please provide a schedule by letter or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with DGE prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staff's requests for additional l
information.
Si cerel, 1 d
o Dav:d J.. Solorio, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50 318
Enclosure:
Request for AdditionalInformation cc w/enci: See next page i
i REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCI FAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS.1 & 2 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT. SECTION 5.1 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318
- Section 5.1.2 - Agina Manaaement 1.
The potential and plausible age related degradation mechanisms for the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system are identified in Table 5.1-2 of Section 5.1 of the license renewal application. However, components such as the AFW piping, pumps and valves are considered to have low susceptibility to fatigue. Provide a description of the evaluation and any specific criteria from which you concluded that fatigue is not a plausible aging effect for the AFW components. Inasmuch as corrosion and pitting have been identified as plausible aging effects for the AFW components, include in your response a discussion that effect of the degradation caused by corrosion and pitting on the structuralintegrity of the components and the basis for excluding fatigue as a plausible aging effect.
2.
The pumps and piping in the AFW were judged to have low susceptibility to dynamic loadings. However, based on operating experience, it is likely that the AFW system will be subject to dynamic loads during transient operation and abnormal events such as water hammer. Provide a summary of the evaluations from which you concluded that damage due to dynamic loading it not an aging concern for the critical components in the AFW system during the proposed period of extended operation.
3 3.
Provide a description of the evaluation and any specific criteria from which you concluded that erosion / corrosion is not a plausible aging effect for the components of the AFW system.
4.
Identify differences between the Diesel Fuel Oil system and AFW system buried pipe inspection programs if there are any differences, provide a description and justification for each of the differences.
i 5.
Are there any parts of the systems, structures and components that are inaccessible for inspection? If so, describe what aging management program will be relied upon to maintain the integrity of the inaccessible areas. If the aging management program for the inaccessible areas is an evaluation of the acceptability of inaccessible areas based on conditions found in surrounding accessible areas, please provide information to show that conditions would exist in accessible areas that would indicate the presence of, or result in degradation to such inaccessible areas. If different aging effects or aging management techniques are needed for the inaccessible areas, please provide a summary to address the following elements for the inaccessible areas: (a) Preventive actions that will mitigate or prevent aging degradation; (b) Parameters monitored or inspected relative to degradation of specific structure and component intended j
functions; (c) Detection of aging effects before loss of structure and component intended Enclosure 4
s m
n e
1 l
9 9
2 functions; (d) Monitoring, trending, inspection, testing frequency, and sample size to ensure timely detection of aging effects and corrective actions; (e) Acceptance criteria to ensure structure and component intended functions; and (f) Operating experience that i
provides objective evidence to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed.
i 1
1 4
j l
j
l Distribution:
HARD COPY l
L geqmgeggspam-PUBLIC PDLR R/F l
MEl-Zeftawy 1
DISTRIBUTION: E-MAIL-l FMiraglia (FJM) i l
JRoe (JWR)
DMatthews (DBM)
CGrimes (CIG)
TEssig (THE)
Glainas (GCL)
)
JStrosnider (JRS2)
GHolahan (GMH)
SNewberry (SFN) i GBagchi(GXB1)
RRothman (RLR)
JBrammer (HLB)
CGratton (CXG1)
JMoore (JEM)
MZobier/RWeisman (MLZ/RMW)
SBajwa/ADromerick (SSB1/AXD)
LDoerflein (LTD) l BBores (RJB)
)
SDroggitis (SCD)
RArchitzel(REA)
CCraig (CMC 1)
LSpessard (RLS)
RCorreia (RPC) l RLatta (RML1)
EHackett (EMH1)
AMurphy (AJM1)
TMartin (TOM 2)
DMartin (DAM 3)
GMeyer (GWM) l WMcDowell(WDM)
SStewart (JSS1)
THiltz (TGH)
SDroggitis (SCD)
DSolorio (DLS2) l PDLR Staff TMarsh (LBM)
GHubbard (GTH) 1 JRajan (JRR)
MBanic (MJB)
SLittle (SLL) l l
l
-