ML20211J235
| ML20211J235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1999 |
| From: | Nick Hilton NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hutchinson C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| TAC-MA4761, NUDOCS 9909030093 | |
| Download: ML20211J235 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:7
- u...
August 31,.1999 Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Vice President, Operations ANO Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S. R. 333 ' Russellville, AR 72801
SUBJECT:
- ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - STEAM GENERATOR OUTER DIAMETER INTERGRANULAR ATTACK ALTERNATE REPAIR CRITERIA (TAC NO. MA4761)
Dear Mr. Hutchinson:
- In a letter dated May 14,1999, Entergy Operations, Inc., submitted a proposed amendment request to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) Technical Specifications. The request . proposed an alternate repair criteria for tube outer diameter intergranular attack (ODIGA) in the ANO-1 steam generators. In ordei to complete our review of this request, we require additional information as specified in the enclosure to this letter. This request for additional information was discussed with Mr. Steve Bennett, and others of your staff on August 23, August 25, and August 26,1999. On August 26,1999, Mr. Bennett and I agreed to a response date of approximately September 3,1999, in order to support your outage. Additional issues were discussed, however, your staff identified the previously docketed location of the information. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Nicholas D. Hilton, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No'. 50-313
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enet: See next page DISTRIBUTION: - W-{
- Docket File ACRS p' o n g' jy Ql PUBLIC OGC y
PDIV-1 Reading P. Rush \\ S. Black K. Brockman, RIV S. Richards To receive a copy of this docuneent, indicate "C" in the box OFFICE PDIV-1/PM C PDIV-1/LA C, PDIV-1/SC (., NAME-NHilton k LBerry /I[ RGramm h3 DATE 8/$/99 8/ 30/99 8/3 ( /99 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDIV-1\\ANO1\\raia4761,wpd OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9909030093 990831 ? PDR ADOCK 05000313 P PDR
~' (1 l' Arkansas NucleaY One cc: Executive Vice President Vice President, Operations Support & Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc. Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Director, Division of Radiation P. O. Box 651 Control and Emergency Management Jackson, MS 39205 . Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3502 Manager, Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatone Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Ar;ington, TX 76011-8064 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801 l May 1999 L:,.
L ) 1 1 a
- (f REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 1 i
l STEAM GENERATOR TUBING l j ALTERNATE REPAIR CRITERIA FOR OUTER DIAMETER INTERGRANULAR ATTACK In a letter dated May 14,1999, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), submitted for staff review a proposed amendment request to revise the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO 1), Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed amendment would implement alternate repair criteria for outer diameter intergranular attack (ODIGA) indications in the ANO-1 steam generators. The a;ioindie repair criteria would allow tubes having ODIGA indications to remain in service, in i order to continue its review, the staff requests the following additionalinformation. { 1. A probability of detection curve is included as Figure 18 in BAW-10235P, Revision O. ) The staff requests additionalinformation to better determine how the curve applies to the ODIGA degradation at ANO-1. Provide the NRC with a list that includes the depth, voltages, eddy current size measurements (if available), tube identity, flaw location on the tube, and plant from which the pulled tube data were obtained for each flaw that were used in the construction of the curve. 2. Proposed TS 4.18.3.a.4 implies that the upper tubesheet area inspection results would not be categorized as either C-1, C-2 or C-3. Provide the basis for excluding these inspection results from any inspection results classification. Attematively, Entergy could modify the TS by incorporating changes similar to those proposed for the proposed license amendment to address steam generator tube end cracking. 3. Entergy will measure ODIGA voltages using Plus Point coil eddy current data. The staff notes that measuring IGA voltages using non-oriented, rotating probe coils (e.g., pancake, Plus Point) produces a signal that is highly variable. Provide additional information to demonstrate that consistent voltage measurements of volumetric IGA flaws can be obtained using Plus Point probes. 4. The in situ pressure test sampling plan does not provide the claimed statistical assurance levels for leakage from the entire population of ODIGA indications when one tube leaks during testing. It can be shown that increasing the number of tests in response to identifying a leaking flaw during sampling where it was presumed no indications would have leaked does not demonstrate a 95-percent probability that the remaining indications in the population will leak less than some specified value. Provide the basis for using a probability of less than 95 percent in demonstrating that the population of ODIGA indications will leak less than the maximum accident-induced leak rate when the condition monitoring in-situ pressure testing program confirms leakage from at least one ODIGA indication. Alternatively, Entergy should modify the proposed sampling plan to demonstrate the stated objective. 5. The ODIGA growth criteria will not permit the easy detection of growth if it shcu!d actually occur. The bases for this conclusion are as follows: (1) only limited requirements have been proposed that would establish the use of consistent eddy current methods in each inspection, and (2) no mechanisms exist for detecting growth of Enclosure
'h. 2-individualindications. In addition, the staff notes that a fundamental assumption of this .~ l alternative repair criteria is violated if ODIGA indications begin to grow. Nevertheless, Entergy's application proposed continued use of the alternative repair criteria even if growth was detected. Provide additionalinformation to the staff that addresses these issues or modify the proposed repair criteria. i e Enclosure .}}