ML20151Y122
| ML20151Y122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1998 |
| From: | Dave Solorio NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M95453, TAC-M95454, TAC-M95457, TAC-M95458, TAC-M99178, TAC-M99180, NUDOCS 9809180114 | |
| Download: ML20151Y122 (7) | |
Text
.
k.
September 7,1998 a
Mr. Chr.ri:s H. Crusa, Vice Presittnt Nuclear Energy Division Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657-47027
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION REGARDING SELECTED FEEDWATER AND DIESEL FUEL OIL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESULTING FROM MAY 6, 1998, MEETING WITH BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (TAC NOS. M95453, M95454, M99178, M95457, M95458, AND M99180)
Dear Mr. Cruse:
On May 6,1998, several members of the Nuclear Regulatory (NRC) staff and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) staff meet to discuss BGE's proposed responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information (RAI) issued on the BGE integrated plant assessment technical reports Feedwater System (5.9) and Diesel Fuel Oil System (5.7) integrated plant j
assessment technical reports submitted by letters dated February 13,1998, and February 19, 1998, respectively.
As a result of the meeting, the NRC staff agreed to provide additional clarification on these two rat. This letter provides the staff's additional clarification and incorporates new information gained by the staff through the review of BGE's license renewal application submitted by letter date April 8,1998.
To facilitate tracking of the Feedwater System (5.9) and Diesel Fuel Oil System (5.7) RAI responses, the item numbers of revised questions correspond to the item numbers of the RAI submitted to BGE by letters dated February 13,1998, and February 19,1998, respectively.
Sincerely, k
David L. 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
(,C \\
\\
cc w/ encl: See next page hh DISTRIBUTION:
See next page DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\ WORKING \\SOLORIO\\FWSRAIRV LTR OFFICE PDLR/DRPM PDLR/DKM:ASC PDLR/DRPM:D DSolorio%
BPrat[k CGrimefw NAME DATE g/[/98 g 9%8 9/~{ /98 5
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 99091SO11k900907 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
7 i
Mr. Charles H. Cruse Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant i
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Unit Nos.1 and 2 cc:
President Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer Calvert County Board of Public Service Commission of Commissioners Maryland 175 Main Street Engineering Division Prince Frederick, MD 20678 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202-0806 James P. Bennett, Esquire Counsel Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Baltin; ore Gas and Electric Company Maryland People's Counsel P.O. Box 1475 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore. MD 21203 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Patricia T. Bimie, Esquire 2300 N Street, NW Co-Director Washington, DC 20037 Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 Mr. Thomas N. Prichett, Director Baltimore, MD 21218 NRM Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Loren F. Donatell 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NRC Techn! cal Training Center Lusby, MD 20657-4702 5700 Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Lewis P.O. Box 287 Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge St. Leonard, MD 20685 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Richard I. McLean Nuclear Programs Douglas J. Walters Power Plant Research Program Nuclear Energy Institute Ma yland Dept. of Natural Resources 1776 i Street, N.W.
Tawes State Office Building, B3 Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 Washington, DC 20006 3708 DJW@NF.1.ORG Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuc'aar Regulator / Comrnission Barth W. Doroshuk 475 Allendale Road Baltimore Gas and Electric Company King of Prussia, PA 19406 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NEF 1st Floor Lusby, Maryland 20657
Distribution:
29 PUBL2C PDLR R/F MEl-Zeftawy DISTRIBUTION: E-MAIL-FMiraglia (FJM)
JRoe (JWR)
DMatthews (DBM)
CGrimes (ClG)
TEssig (THE)
Glainas (GCL)
JStrosnider (JRS2)
GHolahan (GMH)
SNewberry (SFN)
GBagchi(GXB1)
RRothman (RLR) -
JBrammer (HLB)
CGratton (CXG1)
JMoore (JEM)
MZobler/RWeisman (MLZ/RMW)
SBajws/ADromerick (SSB1/AXD)
LDoerflein (LTD)
BBores (RJB)
SDroggitis (SCD).
RArchitzel(REA)
CCraig (CMC 1)
LSpessard (RLS)
RCorreia (RPC)
Platta (RML1)
EH2-katt (EMH1)
AMurphy (AJM1)
TMartin (TOM 2)
DMartin (DAM 3)
GMeyer (GVM)
WMcDowe!!(WDM) -
SStewart (JSS1)
- THiltz (TGH)
SDroggitis (SCD)
DSolorio (DLS2)
PDLR Staff WLefave (WTL1)
GGeorgiev (GSG)
9 1
1 l
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATI.QB l
CLARIFICATION AND FOLLOWUP REGARDING BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION Section 5.9, Feedwater System i
The following items are clarifications and/or revisions to requests for additional information (RAI) submitted to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) by letter dated February 13, 1998 for the integrated plant assessment report,5.9, Feedwater System (FWS). BGE submitted the FWS integrated plant assessment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by letter dated May 23,1997.
1.
Bulle'..ti 79-13 discusses stress assisted corrosion in pressurized water reactor FWS, and Generic Safety Issue 14 discusses stress corrosion cracking specifically in Cornbustion Engineering Plants Feedwater Systems. Provide a justification for not including stress corrosion cracking as an applicable aging effect for the FWS.
5.
Clarify how the high level trip safety function is addressed in your application by identifying the components that have an intended function that supports a high level trip and identify where the aging management review is documented in the license renewal application (LRA).
8.
This question is being withdrawn because it will be addressed by the applicant's proposed response to question number 4 given at the May 6,1998, meeting.
9.
Because the issue associated with fuses has generic applicability to license renewal, this question is being withdrawn until a final NRC staff position on fuses is developed. In the event that this staff position result in any matters affecting the DGE LRA, additional information will be requested at that time.
10.
As a result of the May 6,1998 meeting, the NRC recognizes that BGE's intent is to use device types in a cimilar manner as commodity groups; therefore, BGE is no longe-l requested to respond to this RAI. If specific concems relating to the use of device types l
are identified, additional clarification will be requested at that time.
15.
In order to ensure efficiency with respect to this question, the NRC staff is withdrawing this question until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Chemistry Control program, as i
described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the total informational needs relating to the staff's review of BGE's Chemistry Control program; any additional infcrmation on the Chemistry Control program will be l
requested at that time.
l 1
l Enclosure l
e
}
2 18.
Describe the features of the wet and dry lay up process that ensures that the resulting conditions do not result in aging concerns. Consider in your response that secondary chemistry controls are not in place during wet and dry lay up and the potential effects on aging management.
19.
The NRC staff recognizes that BGE acknowledged that corrosion is an applicable aging mechanism for carbon steel fasteners due to the exposure of these fasteners to the internal environment of borated systems. Discuss the potential for carbon steel fasteners being exposed to the internal environment of other plant mystems such as the FWS. Based on the potential for exposure to the FWS internal environment, provide a bases for concluding that any applicable carbon steel and/or low alloy steel bolting within the scope of the FWS aging management review will not experience aging.
21.
In order to ensure efficiency with respect to this question, the NRC staff is v/ithdrawing this question until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Chemistry Control program, as described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the totalinformstional r.eeds relating to the staff's review of BGE's Chemistry Control Program; any adcitional inforrnation on the Chemistry Control program will be requested at that time.
24.
In order to ensure efficiency with respect to this question, the NRC staff is withdrawing this quest;on until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Chemistry Control program, as described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the totalinformational needs relating to the staffs review of BGE's Chemistry Contral program; any additional information on the Chemistry Control program will be requested at inat time.
32.
!n order to ensure ufficiency with respect to this question, the NRC staff is withdrawing this RAI until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Fatigue program, as described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the total informational needs relating to the staff's review of BGE's Fatigue program; any additional information on the Fatiguo program will be requested at that time.
33.
In order to er.sure efficiency with respect to this questien, the NRC staff is withdrawing this RAI until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Fatigue program, as described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the total informational needs relating to the staffs review of BGE's Fatigue piogram; any additional information requests on the Fatigue program will be requested at that time.
34.
In order to ensure effic;ency with respect to this question, the NRC staff is withdrawing this question until the detailed evaluation of the BGE's Chemistry Control program, as described in the LRA, is completed. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the *otalinformational needs relating to the staff's review of BGE's Chemistry Control Program; any additional information on the Chemistry Control program will be requested at that time.
. -.. - ~. -.
- _ z.
l:
l
-3 l
35.
Discuss the significance of dropping below the minimum wall thickness criteria for the FWS with respect to the effectiveness of your aging management program. Provide a l
summary description of FWS-specific operating experience relating to occurrences of dropping below the minimum wall thickness criteria and a summary description of any corrective actions taken in response to these occurrences.
l 39.
In order to ensure efficiency with respect to this question the NRC staff is withdrawing this question until the' detailed evaluation of the BGE's Erosion Corrosion program, as described in the LRA, is comp'eted. As a result, this question will be reconsidered in light of the total informational needs relating to the staffs review of BGE's Erosion Corrosion program; any additional information on the Erosion Corrosion program will be 9
requested at that time.
I i
r l
l i
1 i
i t
I l-
o...
O i Section 5.7, Diesel Fuel Oil System The following are clarifications and/or revisions to requests for additional'nformation (RAI) submitted to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) by letter date'J February 19,1998 for the integrated plant assessment report,5.7, Diesel Fuel Oil (DFO) Syr, tem. BGE submitted the DFO system integrated plant assessment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by letter dated May 23,1997.
1.
As a result of subsequent staff review of the DFO system repc,rt in light of the May 6, 1998 meeting, the following clarifications or additionel information is requested to be submitted along with your response to this question. For the DFO system provide a 1
summary description of the piping material, piping design standard, seismic category, pipe sizes, operating temperature and pressure, any leak detection measures, such as from inservice inspection and pressure tests, and any evidence of ground surface settlements adjacent to DFO piping.
j l
4.
As a result of subsequent staff review of the DFO system report in light of the May 6, 1998 meeting, the part of this question related to operating experience was revised as follows. The staff's review found that the inspected minimum bottom plate thickness for the fuel oil storage tank was found to be 0.247 inch greater than the required minimum thicknese of 0.24 inch'. This measurement was taken after 20 years of service. How does this measurement compare with the baseline measurements or dimensions?
Based on the current wear rates, provide a projection of the plate thickness after another 40 years of plant operation.
I i
-