ML20217D968
| ML20217D968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1997 |
| From: | Buckley B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Langenbach J GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-M99392, NUDOCS 9710060237 | |
| Download: ML20217D968 (4) | |
Text
'
October 1, 1997 l
Mr. James W. Langenbach Vice President and Director, TMI GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057
SUBJECT:
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 (THI-1) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SURVEILLANCE SPECIFICATION FOR ONCE-THROUGH STEAM GENERATOR (TAC NO. 99392)
Dear Mr. Langenbach:
By submittal dated August 12, 1997, as supplemented August 28 and September 15, 1997, you requested an amendment to the THI-l Technical Specifications to modify the surveillance specifications for once-through steam generators inservice inspection for TMI-l Cycle 12 refueling outage.
Based on our review of the above-cited submittals, we find additional information, as requested in the enclosure, is required in order to continue our review.
If you have any questions on this maticr. please call me at (301) 415-1483.
Sincerely.
Original signed by Bart C. Buckley, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-289
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information ecw/ enc 1:
See next page DISTRIBUTION
][q Docket File OGC PUBLIC ACRS I
,~
BBoger CHehl i
REaton
\\
EDunnington I
BBuckley DOCUMENT NAME: Gr n
w.....,.esw.4
\\BUCKLEY\\ STEAM.RAI
. we.
m,k. wo c. c.,, wanoui.n s, ne.acw...
E, cJa wan.n.cha.nv.new...
r. w....,
OFFICE Pol 3/P,i
-m u l!=
PDil l/LA f
lW (A)DIPol1 l ) F
]
EMCB
_, lE NAME Stutkley P '~
ED mnington Cl fy REeton 3
[ h yl @
(S W DATE 10/ / /97 10/ l /97 6V 10/ \\ /97 10/ l /97 9710060237 971001 c AL aEcono con PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
PDR k k hk
- G RLETRPjnacony
s Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No.1 CC1 Michael Ross Robert B. Borsum Director, O&M, TMI B&W Nuclear Technologies GPU Nuclear Corporation Suite 525 P.O. Box 480 1700 Rockville Pike Middletown, PA 17057 Rockville, MD 20852 John C. Fornicola William Dornsife Acting Director Director, Planning and BureauofRadiatIonProtection Regulatory Affa<rs Pennsylvania Department of GPU Nuclear Corporation Environmental Resources 100 Interpace Parkway P.O. Box 2063 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jack S. Wetmore Dr. Judith Johnsrud Manager, THI Regulatory Affairs National Energy Committee GPU Nuclear Corporation Sierra Club P.O. Box 480 433 Orlando Avenue Middletown, PA 17057 State College, PA 16803 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20037 Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Dauphin County Dauphin County Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17120 Chairman
- Board of Supervisors of Londonderry Township R.D. fl, Geyers Church Road Middletown, PA 17057 Wayne L. Schmidt Senior Resident Inspector (THI-1)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 311 Middletown, PA 17057 Regional Administrator, Region !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
4 4
TMl Amendment No. 283. Ranuant far AddManal infarr,etlan
}
1.
The response to Question 7 of the NRC's request for additionalInformation in the licensee's submittel dated September 15,1997, did not appear to I
adequately respond to the staff's inquiry, Specifically, the staff requested that i
the licensee discuss the loads imparted to a predominantly circumferential defect imposed by the in situ pressure testing. Does the in situ pressure test device l
induce axial stresses into the tube that are conservative with respect to the load stresses postulated to occur under the most limiting conditions (i.e., design 4
basis)? Discuss whether any tubes with limiting circumferentially oriented -
degradation are being considered for in situ pressure testing in the current j
outage. Provide details on the most significant circumferential indications j
identified in the inspections.
j 2.
Other licensee's that have used in situ pressure testing to assess degraded or i
defective tubes often adjust the test pressure to account for tube locking within i
support stru:tures. Discuss whether these effects were considered in establishing the in situ test pressures. If these effects were taken into account, j
state where it was assumed the tube was locked (e.g., tube support plate, tubesheet, etc.). Did the qualification of the test device consider locked tube j
effects?
3.
For the current outage, were all indications detected by bobbin coil inspected with a rotating probe? If no, discuss which indications were not considered for li additional inspections and provide the basis for dispositioning the tubes with i
these indications.
i 4.
Although there is a theoretical basis for concluding that oddy current inspection j
techniques can distinguish between inside diameter (1D) and outside diameter i
i (OD) initiated defects, the staff is aware of several occurrences at other
{
pressurized water reactors facilities where ID defects were called OD during inspections and vice versa. Given the difficulties associated with resolving the initiating surface for tube degradation, discuss how data discrepancies regarding the ID or OD nature of indications between bobbin coil and rotating probes will be resolved during the inspections. The staff notes that the licensee's response i
to Question 2 in the subrnittel dated September 15,1997, indicates that the staff agreed with the original qualification of the bobbin coil examination technique. The staff has rereviewed the original assessment and concluded that I
the scope of the original quellfication did not address the resolution of ID and OD initiated defects. Therefore, the statements included in the staff's evaluation as documented in NUREG 1019 do not apply, i,'
5.
Discuss how the bobbin coil and rotating probes will be calibrated for the
. Inspections. Specifically, address the phase angle associated with a 100 percent hole or notch for each probe type. Also, provide additional
(
information regarding the criteria established for determining whether en
}.
Indication is ID or OD.
Enclosure 4
4 i
h a
s m-_m,,-r--,.---,~~w--,,---,..-,m,
-~~
,m.,-..__,._.~__,-_-_-,--,~_
,__m
+
4 i
2-6.
The proposed amendment establishes a circumferential length repeir limit of t
0.57-inch. However, Appendix D in TDR 423, Revision 1, appears to state that the limiting fisw length for circumferential defects is 0.52. inch. Please clarify this apparent discrepancy between the current proposed Technical specification i
amendment and the limiting defect length discussed in the previously docketed licensee coalysis.
7.
The licensee's response to Question 4 as given in the submittel dated September 15,1997, states that 100 indications will be selected for a growth rate study using rotating probe oddy current data. Discuss the criteria for selecting the indlestions for this study.
~
0
)
L'
~,e
-. y woi..==ew
- -* ~ =-
- v w-m
-+m-g-me*g9=-
we-gey-y eiee
.y-w-
- - + -
em-e-g7 7wy e rm y---
y--
17 y-wwg--e.1 y
9ggy-v-vy-gm-'-