ML20196J747
| ML20196J747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1999 |
| From: | Padovan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-MA5356, NUDOCS 9907080002 | |
| Download: ML20196J747 (4) | |
Text
F
. July 2,'1999 Mr. D. N.' Morey Vics Pr:sid:nt - Farlay Proj:ct South:rn Nucl r Op: rating.
Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295
SUBJECT:
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CYCLE 16 EXTENSION REQUEST (TAC NO. MA5356)
Dear Mr. Morey:
Your April 30,1999, letter requested an amendment to the Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP),
q Unit 1,' Facility Operating License No. NPF-2. The amendment would allow you to operate FNP, Unit 1, for cycle 16 based on the risk-informed probability of steam generator tube rupture and nominal accident-induced primary-to-secondary leakage in the event of a steam line break.
We need additional information, as discussed in the Enclosure, in order to complete our review of your request. Please send us this information within 30 days of the date of this letter. l
. discussed,this request with Mark Ajiuni on July 1,1999, and we mutually established this response date. Please call me at (301) 415-1423 if you need to revise the date.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
L. Mark Padovan, Project Manager, Section 1 pgoN!
vision of L en n Project Management 4e P
(
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-348
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl:. See next page
- DISTR lBUTION:
3 Docket File c SBlack PSkinner, Hil SLong
/0 f
PUBLIC ~
ACRS HBerkow
\\
h PDll-1 R/F OGC-PRush DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDii-1\\Farley\\MA5356rai.wpd To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE PDil 1/PM E
PDil-1/LA I EMCB/SC PDil-1/SC, NAME MPadovan:cr CHawes OM ESullivan k REmc l $/ I /99 6/h/99' h /
/99 7/ [ /99 DATE-OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
)
9nro g
i UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665 4001
.....,/
July 2,1999 Mr. D. N. Moray Vice President - Farley Project Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295
SUBJECT:
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CYCLE 16 EXTENSION REQUEST (TAC NO. MA5356)
Dear Mr. Morey:
Your April 30,1999, letter requested an amendment to the Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP),
Unit 1, Facility Operating License No. NPF-2. The amendment would allow you to operate FNP, Unit 1, for cycle 16 based on the risk-informed probability of steam generator tube rupture and nominal accident-induced primary-to-secc.ndary leakage in the event of a steam line break.
We need additional information, as discussed in the Enclosure, in order to complete our review of your request. Please send us this information within 30 days of the date of this letter. I discussed this request with Mark Ajiuni on July 1,1999, and we mutually established this response date. Please call me at (301) 415-1423 if you need to revise the date.
Sincerely, W
L. Mark Padovan, Project Manager, Section 1 f
Project Directorate 11 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-348
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc wfencl: See r. ext page i
l 1
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant cc:
Mr. L. M. Stinson Rebecca V. Badham General Manager -
SAER Supervisor Southern Nuclear Operating Company Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 470 P. O. Box 470 Ashford, Alabama 36312 Ashford, Alabama 36312 Mr. Mark Ajiuni, Licensing Manager Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 Mr. M. Stanford Blanton Balch and Bingham Law Firm Post Office Box 306 1710 Sixth Avenue North j
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 J
I Mr. J. D. Woodard Executive Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 j
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 1
State Health Officer
' Alabama Department of Public Health 434 Monroe Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 Chairman Houston County Commission Post Office Box 6406 l
Dothan, Alabama 36302 Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7388 N. State Highway 95 Columbia, Alabama 36319
REQUEST FOR ADDflONAL INFORMATION CYCLE 16 EXTENSION REQUEST JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 1
- 1. Please submit a list of all confirmed freespan tube flaws identified in the outage with their corresponding voltages and phase angle measurements recorded using a bobbin coil probe. In addition, please submit bobbin coil eddy current data (Eddynet format) for a sample of at least 20 tubes removed from service for freespan cracking in the end-of-cycle (EOC)-15 outage. Provide data for each tube obtained in the EOC-14 and EOC-15 refueling outages. Include with the tube data the calibration standard data appropriate for each indication (s) to permit proper set-up of the equipment. List the true depths of the reflectors for each calibration standard included on the data disk.
Please send the eddy current data disk and calibration standard information to the following address-Caius V. Dodd 11740 Williamsburg Drive, N.
3 Knoxville, TN 37922-3818
)
You should send the list of all indications found in the Cycle 15 reiueling outage to NRR.
- 2. Nondestructive examination (NDE) sizing uncertainties in Table 5-4 appear to have been developed using two analysts (i.e., D4536 and D9999). However, the majority of the calls j
considered for sizing were from oae of the two analysts. The predominant use of one eddy current analyst may bias the results in that uncertainty distributions will be specific to the
]
particular analyst. Describe how the use of a limited number of data analysts in the sizing j
uncertainty assessment permits an accurate prediction of the EOC-16 flaw distribution.
- 3. Some flaws identified in the destructive examination were excluded from the development of the probability of detection (POD) curves due to close proximity to other cracks (e.g.,
R25C51 - 4,5,6). In other cases (e.g., R25C61 - 9 and 2), two closed spaced cracks were retained for the development of the POD correlation. We are concerned that including closely spaced cracks in the POD correlation does not provide a representative correlation because each crack may not be detected independently. Describe the steps taken to ensure that each flaw considered for the POD correlations was detected independent of one another. Discuss whether detection calls were from the original field analyses completed prior to selecting tubes from removal of the steam generator.
Enclosure I