ML20237E063
| ML20237E063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1998 |
| From: | Dromerick A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| GL-97-01, GL-97-1, NUDOCS 9808280230 | |
| Download: ML20237E063 (7) | |
Text
__. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[h
[
.s UNITED STATE 8 3.
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30806 4001 g+
August 24, 1998 Mr. Charles H. Cruse Vice President - Nuclear Energy Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657
SUBJECT:
GENERIC LETTER (GL) 97-01, " DEGRADATION OF CRDM/CEDM NOZZLE AND OTHER VESSEL CLOSURE HEAD PENETRATIONS" RESPONSES FOR CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESPONSES TO TOPICAL REPORT NO. CE NPSD-1085
Dear Mr. Cruse:
On April 1,1997, the staff issued Generic Letter (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 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 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 l
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company-Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 L
Consumers Energy-Palisades
. Entergy Operations, Inc. - Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 and Waterford Unit 3 lL
' 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 Southem Califomia Edison Company-San Onofre Units 2 and 3 The CEOG s@mht:;d its integrated program and Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 to the staff on July 25,1997.
pg u-
),6 4
g,, g 7, -,
,4 k m b
.n
~.
aaiO 9808290230 990824 PDR ADOCM 05000317 P
r 1 ' i The staff has determined by letters dated' April 30,1997, and July 29,1997, that you were a member of the CEOG and a participant in tne CEOG integrated program that was developed to
~ ddress the sta'fs requests in GL 97-01. In your letters of April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, you j
a also indicated that the information in Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, dated April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, and requires furtherinformation 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 request for additionalinformation (RAI). The staff requests a response to the RAI within 90 days of the submittal date. 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 t
L you to address these inquiries in integrated fashion with the CEOG; however, the staff also I
i-requests that you identify any deviations from the CEOG's integrated program that may be specific to your facilities. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects -l/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional information cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBU'lON:
fjesdistMbidJ PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F J. Zwolinski(A)
S. Bajwa S. Little A. Dromerick OGC ACRS
. C. Hehl, Region i E. Sullivan DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\CC1-2\\GL97-01.LTR To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E"
= Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:P9ty1.j f lE LA:PDI 1 J Q l
D:PDI 1 j/Q l
l l
l NAME' ADr M M M SLittl W ~
$8sJwa FN l
DATE 08/ W /98 ls8/di/98 08/111/98 Official Record Copy
a e l The staff has determined by letters dated April 30,1997, and July 29,1997, 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 letters of April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, you also indicated that the information in Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, dated April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, 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 staffs inquiries in the form of a request for additionalinformation (RAI). The staff requests a response to the RAI within 90 days of the submittal date, 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 facilities. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects -l/ll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enc!: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PUBLIC PDi-1 R/F J. Zwolinski(A)
S. Bajwa S. Little A. Dromerick OGC ACRS C. Hehl, Region 1 E. Sullivan DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\CC1-2\\GL97-01.LTR To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E"
= Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:P9fy1 j f) lE LA:PO! 1 ()V l
D:P01 1 d l
l l
NAME ADr M M / M SLittl W '
$8ajwa fPN DATE 08/// /98 08/2I/98 08/ ul/98 Official Record Copy
d The staff has determined by letters dated April 30,1997, and July 29,1997, 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 letters of April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, you also indicated that the information in Topical Report CE NPSD-1085 is applicable with respect to the assessment of VHP nozzles at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed your responses to GL 97-01, dated April 30,1997 and July 29,1997, 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 staffs inquiries in the form of a request for additionalinformation (RAl). The staff requests a response to the RAI within 90 days of the submittal date.11 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 facilities. The staff appreciates the efforts expended with respect to this matter.
Sincerely, Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/ll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page f
e Mr. Charles H. Cruse Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant cc:
President Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer Calvert County Board of Public Service Commission of Commissioners Maryland 175 Main Street Engineering Division Prince Frederick, MD 20678 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 James P. Bennett, Esquire Counsel Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Maryland People's Counsel P.O. Box 1475 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21203 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Patricia T. Bimie, Esquire 2300 N Street, NW Co-Director Washington, DC 20037 Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 Mr. Bruce S. Montgomery, Director Baltimore, MD 21218 NRM Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Loren F. Donatell 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NRC Technical Training Center Lusby, MD 20657-4702 5700 Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission f
P.O. Box 287 St. Leonard, MD 20685 Mr. Richard I. McLean, Manager Nuclear Programs Power Plant Research Program Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building, B3 Annapolis, MD 21401 Regional Administrator, Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 i
1
I c
4 Request for Additional Information Regarding Utilities Participating in the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG)
Response to Generic Letter (GL) g7-01
" Degradation of CEDM Nozzle and Other.
{
Vessel Closure Head Penetrations"-
i Topical Report CE NPSD-1085, Revision 0 l
l-l t
Applicability of Topical Report Number CE NPSD-1085 to the Plant-specific Responses to GL g7-01 for Participating i
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 in
. 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 structural integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, but rather that the presence of a non-throughwall flaw may require attention or repair.
I Since that time, the staff has leamed informahy that the CEOG has decided to change the l
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 l
g7-01, 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):
i
- 1. Designate which crack susceptibility modelis being endorsed for the assessment of l
CEDM penetration nozzles at your plant (s). 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 l
modelis consistent with the contents of Topical Report CE NPSD-1085. If the ABB-CE's PITM model is being endorsed for the assessment of CEDM penetration nozzles at your plant (s), address the items a. - e. that follow. If the Dominion Engineering susceptibility y
model is being endorsed for the assessment of CEDM penet' ration nozzles at your plant (s),' address the items g. - k. that follow.
If the PITM models are beina endorsed for the assessment of your CEDM penetration i.
nozzles:
Provide an ' expanded discussion and additional details describing how the time-to-a.
tailure model in 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 probability of failure methodology.
Enclosure
f j l b.
Provide the latest PITM susceptibility ranking of CEDM penetration nozaes, and if l
applicable of the vessel head instrumentation nozzles at your plant (s) relative to the rankings of those at the other CEOG member plants.
l Provide a description of how the PITM model for assessing postulated flaws in c.
vessel head penetration nozzles was bench-maded, and list and discuss the standards the models were bench-ma*ed 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.
Describe how the variability in the product forms, material specifications, and heat e.
i treatments used to fabricate each CEDM penetration nozzle at the CEOG member utilities are addressed in the PITM model.
l i
If the susceptibility model developed by Dominion Enaineerina is beino endorsed for the l
assessment of your CEDM penetration 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 nozzles were bench-marked, 4
and a listing and discussion of the standards the models were bench-marked against.
l.
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.