ML20195J540
| ML20195J540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1998 |
| From: | Rinaldi F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Barron H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-97-01, GL-97-1, TAC-M98573, TAC-M98574, NUDOCS 9811250006 | |
| Download: ML20195J540 (8) | |
Text
,f fl s.
p u:
k p
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. enana anni
- Y*
6 November 19, 1998 Mr. H B. Barron vice President, McGuire Site Duke Energy Corporation 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-8985
SUBJECT:
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - GENERIC LETTER 97-01,
" DEGRADATION OF CRDM/CEDM [ CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECHANISM / CONTROL ELEMENT DRIVE MECHANISM) NOZZLE AND OTHER VESSEL CLOSURE HEAD PENETRATIONS" (TAC NOS. M98573 AND M98574)
Dear Mr.Barron:
On April 1,1997, the staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 97-01, " Degradation of CRDWCEDM Nozzle and Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations," requesting, in part, that Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) provide a description of the plans to inspect the vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles at its respective pressurized water reactor (PWR) designed plants. With respect to the issuance of the GL, the staff required DEC to" submit an initial response within 30 days $of issuance ir. forming the staff of the irgtent to comply with the requested information and a follow-up response within 120 days of issuance containing the technical details to the staff's information requests. In the
- Discussion" section of the GL, the staff stated that " individual licensees may wish to determine their inspection activities based on an integrated industry inspection program...," and indicated that it did not object to individual PWR licensees basing their inspection activities on an integrated industry inspection program.
As a result, the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG) determined that it was appropriate for its members to develop a cooperative integrated inspection program in response to GL 97-01.
[
The WOG program is documented in two Topical Reports issued by the Westinghouce Electric Corporation (WEC), WCAP-14901, Revision 0, " Background and Methodology for Evaluation of j/
Reactor Vessel Closure Head Penetration integrity for the Westinghouse Owners Group," and WCAP-14902, Revision 0, " Background Material for Response to NRC Generic Letter 97-01:
Reactor Vessel Closure Head Penetration integrity for the Westinghouse Owners Group."
7 The WOG submitted the integrated programs described in WCAP-14901 and WCAP-14902 to the staff on July 25,1997 The staff has determined by your letters dated April 28 and July 30,1997, that you were a member of the WOG and a participant in the WOG integrated program that was deve,ioped to address the staffs requests in GL 97-01. In your letter of July 30,1997, you also indicated that the information in WEC Topical Report WCAP-14901 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, and requires further information to complete its review of your responses as they relate to the WOG's integrated program for assessing VHP nozzles at WOG member plants, and to the contents of Topical Report G
,w,,
^"T
,n
" ' ~ ' " "
9811250006 981119 F
PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
m._
H.B.Banon WCAP-14901. The enclosur& to this letter forwards the staff's inquiries in the form of a reoncat for additionalinformation (RAl).
The staff requests a response to the RAI by February 5,1999. This date has been discussed and agreed upon with Mr. M. Wilder of your staff. It should be noted that similar staff requests have been issued to other WOG mernber t +ilities. As was the staff's position before, the staff encourages you to address these inquiries,o integrated fashion with the WOG and the Nuclear Energy Institute; however, the staff also requests that you identify any deviations from the WOG's integrated program that may be specific to your facility. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincere!y, w&/
Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Divisiori of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page l
l l
l f
i-I
McGuire Nuclear Station m:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Ms. Karen E. Long Legal Department (PBO5E)
Assistant Attorney General
. Duke Energy Corporation North Carolina Department of 422 South Church Street Justice Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 County Manager of
. Mecklenburg County L. A. Keller 720 East Fourth Street Manager-Nuclear Regulatory Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 1
Michael T. Cash 526 South Church Street Regulatory Compliance Manager Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Site Regional Administrator, Region il 12700 Hagers Ferry Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Atlanta Federal Center "61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 J. Michael McGarry, lil, Esquire Atlanta, Georgia 30303
. Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Washington, DC 20005 Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Senior Resident inspector Raieigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Departmerst of Dr. John M. Barry Environment, Health and I!atural Mecklenberg County R sources Department of Environmental 3825 Barrett Drive Protection Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Mr. Steven P. Shaver Duke Energy Corporation Senior Sales Engineer 4800 Concord Road Westinshou e Electric Company York, South Carolina 29745 5929 Carnegie Blvd.
Suite 500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
H. B. Barron November 19, 1998 WCAP-14901. The enclosure to this letter forwards the staff's inquiries in the form of a re quest for additionalinformation (RAI).-
The staff requests a response to the RAI by February 5,1999. This date has been discusoed and agreed upon with Mr. M. Wilder of your staff. It should be noted that similar staff requests have been issued to other WOG member utilities. As was the staff's pos tion before, the staff
- encourages you to address these inquiries in integrated fashion with the WOG and the Nuclea:
Energy Institute; however, the staff also requests that you identify any deviations from the WOG's integrated program that may be specific to your facility. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely,
'0RIGINAL SIGNFD BY:
1 Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate ll-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuciear Rea.or Regulation -
Docket Nos. 50-389 and 50-370
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File ACRS PUBLIC LPlisco, Ril PD 11-2 Rdg.
COgle, Ril JZwolinski JHarold EJSullivan OGC r
l l
DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\MCGUIRE\\MCG98573.RAI j
. To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy a
OFFICE PM:PDil-2 n hE LA:PD:ll-2 (
QlJ D:PDil-2N)V l l
l i
NAME FRinald,i:cM VLBerry, Alh HBerkow ' W DATE
( / 1998 I I\\ /NTf98
\\
/ *) /98 "
OFFICIAL RECOR 3 COPY
. J.
. ~_--
~ _
Reauest for Additional Information
, Resoonse to Generic Letter 97-01 "Backaround and Methodoloov for Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Closure Head Penetration Intearity for the Westinahouse Owners Grouo" Toolcal Reoort WCAP-14901. Revision 0 i
- 1. Relationship and Applicability of WCAP-14901, Revision 0, to GL 97-01 and the WOG On April 1,1997, the staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 97-01, " Degradation of CRDM/CEDM
[ Control Rod Drive Mechanism / Control Element Drive Mechanism) Nozzle and Other Vesse!
Closure Head Penetrations," to Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) requesting, in part, that DEC provide a description of the plans to inspect the vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles at their respective pressurized water reactor (PWR) designed plants. With respect to the issuance of the GL, the staff required the addressees to submit an initial response within 30 days of issuance informing the staff of the intent to comply with the requested information and a follow-up response within 120 days of issuance corttaining the technical details to the staffs information requests. In the discussion section of the GL, the staff stated that " individual licensees may wish to determine their inspection =ctivitiet, based on an integrated industry -
inspection program...," and indicated that it did not object to individual PWR licensees basing their inspection activities on an integrated industry inspection program.
As a result, the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG) determined that it was appropriate for its members to develop a cooperative integrated inspection program in response to GL 97-01.
The WOG program is dccumented in two Topical Reports issued by the Westinghouse Electric 4
Corporation (WEC), WCAP-14901, Revision 0, " Background and Methodology for Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Closure Head Penetration Integrity for the Westinghouse Owners Group," and WCAP-14902, Revision 0, " Background Material for Response to NRC Generic Letter 97-01:
Reactor Vessel Closure Head Penetration integrity for the Westinghouse Owners Group."
The technical content provided in WCAP-14901, Revision 0, is basici.;iy the same as that provided in WCAP-14902. The difference with regard to the reports is that WOG member plants subscribing to the content of WCAP-14901 have opted to rank the susceptibility of their
- VHPs according to a probabilistic Weibull analysis method that was developed by WEC. In contrast, the WOG member plants cubscribing to the content of WCAP-14902, Revision 0, have opted to rank the VHPs for their facilities according to a probabilistic methodology that was developed by another vendor of choice. The staff has determined by DEC letters dated April 28 and July 30,1997, that you were a member of the WOG and a participant in the WOG integrated program that was developed to address the staffs requests in GL 97-01. In your letter dated July 30,1997, you also indicated that the information in WEC Topical Report WCAP-14901 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at McGuire Units 1 and 2.
Enclosure
,. The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, and requires further information to complete W review of your re'sponses as they relate to the WOG's integrated program for assessing VHP nozzles at WOG member plants, and to the contents of Topical Report WCAP-14901. The staff requests the following information with respect to the content of your responses to GL 97-01, and to the content of WCAP-14901 as it relates to these responses:
- 1. In WCAP-14901, WEC did not provide any conclusions as to what the probabilistic failure model would lead the WOG to conclude with respect to the assessment of primary water stress-corrosion cracking (PWSCC)in WEC-dedgned VHPs. With respect to the probabilistic susceptibility model (e.g., probabili #, failure model) provided in WCAP-14901:
l
- a. Provide the susceptibility rankings compiled for the ' NOG member plants for which WCAP-14901 is applicable. With regard to ott er WOG member plants to which l
WCAP-14901 is applicable, include the basis for establishing the ranking of your plant relative to the others.
- b. Describe'how the probabilistic failure model in WCAP-14901'for assessing postulated l
flaws in VHP nozzles was benchmarked, and provide a list and discussion of the standards the model was benchmarked against.
t
- c. Provide additional information, regarding how the probabilistic failuro models in l
WCAP-14901 will be rarM to allow the input of plant-specific inspection data into the model's analysis methchq;y.
- d. Describe how the variability in product forms, material specifications, and heat treatments used to fabricate each CRDM penetration nozzle at the WOG member utilities are i
addressed in the probabilistic crack initiation and growth models described or referenced in Topical Report WOAP-14901,
- 2. Table 1-2 in WCAP-14901 provides a summary of the key tasks in WEC's VHP nozzle assessment program. The table indicates that the Tasks for (1) Evaluation of PWSCC l
Mitigation Methods, (2) Crack Growth Data and Testing, and (3) Crack initiation Characterization Studies have not been completed and are stillin progress. In light of the l
fact that the probabilistic susceptibility models appear to be dependent in part on PWSCC crack initiation and growth estimates, provide your best estimate when these tasks will be completed by WEC, and describe how these activities relate to and will be used to update the probabilistic susceptibility assessment of VHP nozzles at your plant.
- 3. In the Nuc! ear Energy Institute (NEI) lettes of January 29,1998 (Reference 1), and April 1, C98 (Reference 2), NEl indicated that inspection plans have been developed for the VHP nozzles at the Farley Unit 2 plant in the year 2002, and the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 plant in l
the year 2001, respectively. The staff has noted that although you have endorsed the l
probabilistic susceptibility model described in WCAP-14901, Revision 0, other WOG l
member licensees have endorsed a probabilistic susceptibility model developed by an alternate vendor of choice. The WOG's proposal to inspect the VHP nozzles at the Farley Unit 2 and Diablo Canyon Unit 2 plants appears to be based on a composite assessment of l
the VHP nozzles at all WOG member piants. Verify that such a composite ranking assessment has been applied to the evaluation of VHP nozzles at McGuire. If composite rankings of the VHP nozzles at WOG member plants have been obtained from the composite results of the two models, justify why application of the probabilistic susceptibility i
s
=
+
e 4
a y
o r a,0 a
-.+.a.-
+-.,.-a
... = - -
=. -
g
(..
I i.
t l
3-
)
model described in WCAP-14901, Revision 0, would yield the same comparable relative
- rankings for the VHP nozzles for McGuire as would application of the alternate probabilistic
}
susceptibility model used by the WOG member plants not subscribing to WCAP-14901, t
l Revision O. Comment on the susceptibility rankings of the VHP nozzles at the McGuire relative to the susceptibility rankings of the VHP nozzles at Farley Unit 2 and Diablo Canyon l
Unit 2.
l i
/
9 4
l l.
l l
I l~
l l
l
i REFERENCES
- 1. Janusry 19,1998 - Letter from David J. Modeen, Director of Engineering, Nucl:ar Generation Division, Nuc; ear Energy Institute, to Mr. G. C. Lainas, Acting Director, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Untitled).
- 2. April 1,1998 - Letter from David J. Modeen, Director of Engineering, Nuclear Generation Division, Nuclear Energy institute, to Mr. G. C. Lainas, Acting Director, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
SUBJECT:
Generic Letter 97-01, ' Degradation of Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle and Other Vessel Head Penetrations."
1
.