ML20196J940
| ML20196J940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1998 |
| From: | Nolan M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hutchinson C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| GL-97-01, GL-97-1, TAC-M98544, NUDOCS 9812110117 | |
| Download: ML20196J940 (6) | |
Text
=.
e
[*4 hd/Nf UNITED STATES p
y j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001
'+9 *****,o December 8, 1998 Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Vice President, Operations ANO Entergy Operations, Inc.
1448 S. R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801
SUBJECT:
GENERIC LETTER (GL) 97-01, " DEGRADATION OF CRDM/CEDM NOZZLE AND OTHER VESSEL CLOSURE HEAD PENETRATIONS" REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl) FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 i
AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESPONSE TO TOPICAL REPORT NO.
CE NPSD-1085 (TAC NO. M98544)
Dear Mr. Hutchinson:
On April 1,1997, the staff issued GL 97-01, " Degradation of CRDM/CEDM Nozzle and Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations," to the industry requesting, in part, that addressees provide a description of the plans to inspect the vessel head penetration nozzles (VHPs) 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 requested information and a follow-up 4
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 "individuallicensees 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 CEOG determined that it was appropriate for its members to develop a cooperative integrated inspection program in response to GL 97-01. The CEOG program is documented in Topical Report No. CE NPSD-1085, "CEOG Response to NRC Generic Letter 97-01, Degradation of CEDM Nozzle and Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations,"
which was prepared by ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations (ABB-CE) on behalf of the CEOG and the following CEOG member utilities and plants:
Arizona Public Service - Palo Verde Units 1,2, and 3 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company - Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 Consumers Energy - Palisades Entergy Operations, Inc. - Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 and Waterford Unit 3 Florida Power and Light Company - St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Northeast Utilities - Millstone Unit 2 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company - Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant
(
Omaha Public Power District - Fort Calhoun Unit 1 t
Southern California Edison Company - San Onofre Units 2 and 3 I
The CEOG submitted its integrated program and Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 to the staff on July 25,1997.
@f33 Ok 4
PDR ADOCK 05000368 Ee.g' g r" P !" " P 9812110117 981208 t'
t
~
P PDR
Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson
- The staff has determined by letters dated April 30,1997 (OCAN049706), and July 29,1997 (0CAN079703), that you were a member of the CEOG and a participant in the CEOG integrated program that was developed to address the staffs requests in GL 97-01. In your letter of July 29,1997 (0CAN079703), you also indicated that the information in Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, dated April 30,1997 (0CAN049706), and July 29,1997 (0CAN079703), and requires further information to complete its review of the responses as they relate to the CEOG's integrated program for assessing VHP nozzles at CEOG member plants, and to the contents of Topical Report No. CE NPSD-1085. The enclosure to this letter forwards staff's inquiries in the form of a RAl.
The enclosed request was discussed with Mr. Steve Bennett of your staff on November 18, 1998. A mutually agreeable target date of March 1,1999, for your response was established.
If circumstances result in the need to revise the target date, please call me at the earliest opportunity. It should be noted that similar staff requests have been issued to other CEOG member utilities. As was the staffs position before, the staff encourages you to address these inquiries in integrated fashion with the CEOG; however, the staff also requests that you identify any deviations from the CEOG's integrated program that may be specific to your facility. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
M. Christopher Nolan, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-368
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
. Docket File?
PUBLIC PDIV-1 r/f EAdensam (EGA1)
ACRS JHarold CMarschall TSullivan OGC TGwynn, RIV JZwolinski CHawes CNolan JHannon Document Name: AR298544298544RAI hPI4-1 OFC PM/PD4-1 LA/PD4-1 i
NAME CNolanN CHawN JHannon DATE lb / O /98 h3/98 Olh/98 YEhhO
$ PY YES/NO YES/NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
b Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson The staff has determined by letters dated April 30,1997 (0CAN049706), and July 29,1997 (OCAN079703), that you were a member of the CEOG and a participant in the CEOG integrated program that was developed to address the staff's requests in GL 97-01. In your letter of July 29,1997 (OCAN079703), you also indicated that the information in Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, dated April 30,1997 (OCAN049706), and July 29,1997 (OCAN079703), and requires further information to complete its review of the responses as they relate to the CEOG's integrated program for assessing VHP nozzles at CEOG member plants, and to the contents of Topical Report No. CE NPSD-1085. The enclosure to this letter forwards staff's inquiries in the form of a RAI.
The enclosed request was discussed with Mr. Steve Bennett of your staff on November 18, 1998. A mutually agreeable target date of March 1,1999, for your response was established.
If circumstances result in the need to revise the target date, please call me at the earliest opportunity. It should be noted that similar staff requests have been issued to other CEOG member utilities. As was the staff's position before, the staff encourages you to address these inquiries in integrated fashion with the CEOG; however, the staff also requests that you identify any deviations from the CEOG's integrated program that may be specific to your facility. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely,
- , h h '-
M. Christopher Nolan, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-368
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page
]
Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 cc:
Executive Vice Presiderit Vice President, Operations Support
& Chief Operating Ofur Entergy Oper6tions, Inc.
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jackson, MS 39286-199 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Director, Division of Radiation P. O. Box 651 Control and Emergency Management Jackson, MS 39205 Arkansas Department of Health i
4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 l
Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 Wintton & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502
]
Manager, Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatone Technologies i
1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525
)
i Rockville, MD 20852 i
Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801 4
t Request for Additional information Regarding Utilities Participating in the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG)
Response to Generic Letter (GL) 97-01
" Degradation of CEDM Nozzle and Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations"-
Topical Report CE NPSD-1085, Revision 0 Applicability of Topical Report Number CE NPSD-1085 to the Plant-specific Responses to GL 97-01 for Participating Member Utilities and Plants in the CEOG The ABB - Combustion Engineering Corporation's (ABB-CE's) methodology for predicting the susceptibility of vessel head penetration nozzles in the CEOG plant designs is provided in Section 2.4 of CE Topical Report No. CE NPSD-1085, which was submitted to the staff on July 25,1997. ABB-CE's methodology applies a probabilistic inspection timing model (PITM) to predict the probability of having a given Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) penetration nozzle or in-core instrumentation (ICl) nozzle fail in service. With respect to the PITM model, the term " failure" does not refer to a compromise of the structuralintegrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, but rather that the presence of a non-throughwall flaw may require attention or repair.
Since that time, the staff has leamed informally that the CEOG has decided to change the methodology for evaluating the CRDM penetration nozzles in ABB-CE designed plants, and lately has adopted a CEDM penetration nozzle crack initiation and growth susceptibility model that has been developed by the Dominion Engineering Company. However, the CEOG has not submitted an addendum to its response of July 25,1997, informing the staff of its decision to change the susceptibility model being adopted by the Owners Group member utilities. The staff requests the following information be provided with respect to content of your plant-specific response to GL 97-01, and its relationship to the CEOG integrated program for assessing the potential for CEDM penetration nozzles to undergo primary stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) or intergranular attack (IGA):
1.
Designate which crack susceptibility modelis being endorsed for the assessment of CEDM penetration nozzles at your plant. Indicate how the susceptibility model being endorsed relates to the CEOG's integrated program for assessing the CEDM penetration nozzles at ABB-CE designed plants, and whether or not the design of the susceptibility modelis consistent with the contents of Topical Report CE NPSD-1085. If the ABB-CE's PITM modelis being endorsed for the assessment of CEDM penetration nozzles at your plant, addrest the items a. -
- e. that follow. If the Dominion Engineering susceptibility modelis being endorsed for the assessment of CEDM penetration nozzles at your plant, address the items g. - k. that follow.
If the PITM models are being endorsed for the asseument of your CEDM Denetration nozzles:
a.
Provide an expanded uiscussion and additional details describing how ENCLOCURE
___-_____.m__
3..-
. the time-to-failure modelin the PITM relates to the PITM's time-to-initiation model. In particular, include an expanded discussion of how the PITM model relates growth of postulated flaws to the time-to-initiation model, and how the two aspects relate to each other and to the probabil4y of failure methodology.
b.
Provide the latest PITM susceptibility ranking of CEDM penetration nozzles, and if applicable of the vessel head instrumentation nozzles at your plant relative to the rankings of those at the other CEOG member plants.
c.
Provide a description of how the PITM model for assessing postulated i
flaws in vessel head penetration nozzles was bench-marked, and list and
{
discuss the standards the models were bench-marked against.
d.
Provide any additional information regarding how the model will be refined to allow the input of plant-specific inspection data into the model's analysis methodology.
e.
Describe how the variability in the product forms, material specifications, 1
and heat treatments used to fabricate each CEDM penetration nozzle at the CEOG member utilities are addressed in the PITM model.
If the suscentibility model develooed by Dominion Enaineerina is beina endorsed for the assessment of your CEDM oenetration nozzles:
f.
Provide a description of how the various product forms, material specifications, and heat treatments used to fabricate each CEDM penetration nozzle at the CEOG member utilities are handled in the Dominion Engineering susceptibility model.
g.
Provide any additional information, if available, regarding how the model will be refined to allow the input of plant-specific inspection data into the model's analysis methodology, h.
Describe how the Dominion Engineering crack initiation and crack growth models for assessing postulated flaws in vessel head penetration nozz!es were bench-marked, and a listing and discussion of the standards the models were bench-marked against.
l i.
Provide the latest model susceptibility rankings of CEDM penetration nozzles in CEOG member plants based on the results of the Dominion Engineering susceptibility model analyses of these CEDM and ICI nozzles.
I
-