ML20246L728
| ML20246L728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek, Callaway, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Alexion T, Pickett D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180389 | |
| Download: ML20246L728 (14) | |
Text
_ - _ _.
I; l
' p erc(h 4
UNITED STATES
[
y['.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
l u ss m orow,o.c.20sss
\\*/
Ma.v 5, 1989 a....
Docket Nos. 50-482 and 50-483 LICEtiSEE: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Union Electric Company FACILITY: Wolf Creek Generating Station Callaway Nuclear Plant
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION AND UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY TO DISCUSS CONTAIHMEtiT VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE WOLF CREEK AND CALLAWAY FACILITIES The subject meeting was held on May 3,1989 in the NRC offiu.s in Rockville, MD.
A list of attendees is included in Enclosure 1. is a copy of the licensee's present6 tion.
Both licensees had submitted previous requests for changes to the technical specifications. The present tendon surveillance technical specifications are stated in Sections 3.6.1.6 and 4.6.1.6 of the plants' Technical Specifications.
The Liniting Conditions of Operations (LCOs) are stated in Section 3.6.1.6, and the technical requirements are stated in Section 4.6.1.6.
The existing LCO (a) requires the plant to be in hot standby (mode 3) after 15 days, if the deficiencies related to the behavior of sample tendon prestressing force measure-mer.t can not be corrected; For all other conditions (LC0(b)) such as tendon wire strength degradation, voids or water content in the grease, the technical specifications recuire the plant shutdown (mode 3) after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The licensees criginally proposed to amend the existing requirements with a minimum shutdown period of 15 days for LC0(a), and varying LCO requirements for other conditions.
During a r'eeting on March 16, 1988 the licensee met with the NRC staff to discuss this original proposal. As a result of that meeting the licensees were requested to submit statistical analysis to justify continued plant operation for up to 15 days as proposed in the technical specification amend-ments. By letters dated March 29, 1989 and March 23, 1989, the Wolf Creek and Callaway licensees, respectively submitted responses to the staff's request.
The purpose of the May 3,1989 meeting was to discuss the staff's review of the licensees' proposals and to discuss ways to resolve this licensing action.
The licensee, along with their contractors, began the meeting by discussing their latest submittels.
Included in their presentation was their concern over the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LC0 currently in the technical specifications. The licensees felt 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> was not practical for the following reasons: A) Insufficient time would be available to select accessible tendons and erect scaffolding if additional testing is required; B) Insufficient time would be available to get test or chemical analysis results back from off-site contractors; C) Insufficient time would be available if problems develop over weekend hours; and D) Insufficient tine rould be available to adequately analyze and respond to new issues or utiidentified problems.
8905180389 890505 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
PDC I (
2 In response to the licensees' presentation the staff stated that the limited database of the statistical analysis did not properly address the staff's concerns.
In addition, while the staff agreed with many aspects of the licensees' concerns over the current 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO, the staff questioned the need to exphnd the LC0 for up to 30 days as proposed in the submittals.
Following a caucus by the staff, an extended session was conducted to derive technical specifications that met both the requirements of the staff and the concerns of the licensees. Both the licensees and the staff participated in the development of the technical specifications of Enclosure 3. was distributed to both licensees at the close of the meeting and it was agreed upon that the technical specifications A) Met the staff's requirements regarding containment vessel structural integrity; B) Represented clarifications of the licensees' original submittals; at:d C) Het the conclusions of the safety evaluation and significant hazards consideration determination originally subritted by the two licensees.
As/
Douglas V. Pickett, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/s/
Thomas Alexion, Project Manager Project Directorate - III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosura:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR J. Sniezek PD4 Reading J. Calvo F. Hebdon D. Pickett T. Alexion 0GC-Rockville l
E. Jordan B. Grimes C. Tan H. Ashar G. Bagchi l
J. Hannon D. Wigginton D. Jeng ACRS(10)
T. Martin, RIV l
PD4 Plant File hb'PDIII
'PI JCalvo/7'6 PD4/
q PD4/L DPic%re,tt:sr PD4/D TAlex on PNoona 05/4/89 05/ 4 /89 05/ N 89 05/r/89
l
. In response to the licensees' presentation the staff stated that the limited database of the statistical analysis did not properly address the staff's concerns.
In addition, while the staff agreed with many aspects of the licensees' concerns over the current 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO, the staff questioned the need to expand the LCO for up to 30 days as proposed in the submittals.
Following a caucus by the staff, an extended session was conducted to derive technical specifications that met both the requirements of the staff and the concerns of the licensees.
Both the licensees and the staff participated in the development of the technical specifications of Enclosure 3. was distributed to both licensees at the close of the meeting and it was agreed upon that the technical specifications A) Met the staff's requirements regarding containment vessel structural integrity; B) Represented clarifications of the licensees' original submittals; and C) Met the conclusions of the safety evaluation and significant hazards consideration determination originally submitted by the two licensees.
V S Douglas V. Pickett, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~
^
4{_, konwlal:[.
hw>, rJ u
Thomas Alexion, Project Manag r Project Directorate - III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
]
r.
l
.l Mr. Bart D.- Withers Wolf Creek Generating Station Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Unit No. I cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Mr. Gerald Allen Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Public Health Physicist 1800 M Street, NW..
Bureau of Air Quality & Radiation Washington, D.C.
20036 Control Division of Environment Chris R. Rogers, P.E.
Kansas Department.of Health Manager, Electric Department and Environment Public Service Commission Forbes Field Building 321 P. O. Box 360 Topeka, Kansas 66620 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Gary Boyer, Plant Manager Regional Administrator, Region III Wolf Creek Nuclear. 0perating Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 411 799 Roosevelt Road Burlington, Kansas 66839 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Regional Administrator, Region IV Senior Resident Inspector / Wolf Creek U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Comission c/o V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Executive Director P. O. Box 311 for Operations Burlington, Kansas 66839 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Robert Elliot, Chief Engineer Utilities Division Mr. Otto Maynard, Manager Licensing Kansas Corporation Comission Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
4th Floor - State Office Building P. O. Box 411 Topeka,-Kansas 66612-1571 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Office of the Governor State of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 66612
' Attorney General 1st Floor - The Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Chairman, Coffey County Comission Coffey County Courthouse Burlington, Kansas 66839
___________._.___.____________m__.
..I
l fir. D-F. Schnell Callaway Plant
.Unier. Electric Company Unit No. 1 CC:
Dr. J. O. Cermack Mr. Bart D. Withers CFA Inc.
President and Chief 4 Professional Dr., Suite 110~
Executive Officer Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
P. O. Box 411 Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Burlington, Kansas 66839 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.
Mr. Dan I. Bolef, President Washington, D.
C.-
20037 Kay Drey, Representative.
Board of Directors Coalition Mr. T. P. Sharkey.
for the Environment Supervising Engineer, St. Louis Region Site Licensing 6267 Delmar Boulevard Union Electric Company University City, Missouri 63130 Post Office Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office RRf1 Steedman, Missouri 65077 fir. Alan C. Passwater, Manager Licensing'and Fuels Union Electric Company Post Office Bcx 149 St.~ Louis, Missouri 63166 Hanager - Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission 301 W. High Post Office Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
' Regional Administrator U. S. NRC, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Ronald A. Kucera, Deputy Director Department of Natural Resources P. O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
4 w
MEETING ATTENDEES
- WCNOC/UflION ELECTRIC CONTAINMENT TENDON MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Name Affiliation Douglas V. Pickett NRC - Wolf Creek PM Dennis L. Bettenhaussen Union Electric Dave Shafer Union Electric - Lic.
Alan C. Passwater.
Union Electric Otto L. Maynard Wolf Creek Nuc. Opr. Corp.
Harold K. Chernoff Wolf Creek Nuc Opr. Corp.
tiaurice Dingler Woli Creek Nuc. Opr. Corp.
Chen P. Tan NRC/ DEST /ESGB Hans Ashar NRC/ DEST /ESGB G. Bapchi
.NRC/ DEST /ESGB
' John Hannon NRR/PDIII-3
. Tom-A ex on NRR/PDIII-3 l
i Frederick J. Hebdon NRR Dave Wigginton NRR/PD-IV David L. Jeng NRR/ESGB Marwan H. Daye Bechtel Power Corp.
Nar Goel Bechtel Power Corp.
San Sge-Ung Bechtel Power Corp.
Eugene U. Thomns Bechtel Power Corp.
1 l
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY AND WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION MEETING WITH THE NRC STAFF CONCERNING PROPOSED REVISION TO CONTAINMENT VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION i
MAY 3,1989
]
UNION
.Etscraic a
AND W$LF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION l
CONTAINMENT VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MEETING I.
INTRODUCTION II.
DISCUSSION OF RECENT SUBNITTALS A. ULNRC 1950, DATED NARCH 23, 1989 B. WM 89-0097, DATED MARCH 29, 1989 III. DISCUSSION OF LICENSEE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE T.S.
IV.
OPEN DISCUSSION V.
BREAK VI.
OPENDISCUSSION(continued)
VII. RESOLITTION VIII. SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER ACTIONS
t l.
I.
PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISIONS l
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STRUCTURE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STRUCTURE
- DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE l
9
Enclosure '3 j
4 SAMPLE TECHP:f CAL SPECIFICATION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 1
J CONTAINMENT VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGR1TY LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION j
3.6.1.6 The structural integrity of the containment vessel shall be main-
)
tained at a level consistent with the acceptance criteria in Specification 4.6.1.6.
APPLICABILITY: Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
cg vc.c,N my c.~rw mcm-
' s maenrect p re.cn.r<
i ACTION:
u With the abnorma gradation,edicated by the conditions in Specie a.
fication 4.6#..la.4, restor,e' the tendons to the required level of integrity 4Tthin 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> apd perform an engineering evaluation of the containment and provide a Special Report to the Comission with-in 15 days in accordance w'ith Specification 6.9.2 or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the xt 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
b.
With the indicated abnormal degradation of the structural integrity other than ACTION a at a level below the acceptance criteria of Specification 4.6.
6, restore the containment vessel to the required 1evet o' integrity ithin 15 dcys; perform an engineering evaluation l
e'- the containment and provide a Sevef al hepart to the Comission i
wit (in 30 day, in at'coishnco Nth $p'etiffcatip 6.9_.2 or be in at least HOT STANDBY within th'e next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN 3CM
.sa w w r, u within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. TL. r w s,..,
e, m se-menu.
l SURVE11.1.ANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.6.1.6.1 CONTAINMENT VESSEL TENDONS The structural integrity of the prestressing tendons of the containment vessel shall be demonstrated at the end of 1,3, and 5 years following the initial containment vessel structural integrity test and at 5-year intervals there-after.
:r : -5'
- f ' :; :t't-: c' *e ~- t !'---* """-' ** e f r-',integri-
'- r"* 't ;;h;d.k ;5:" 5 !: 9 " ' "t:? :-t i. The structural ty of the tendons should be demonstrated by:
Determining that a rendom but representative sample of at least dome 4
a.
- vertical,
//
tendons ( 7 hoop, inverted 0) each have r observeif~lTTE-off force within the prit-For each subsequent in-dicted limits established for each tendon.
spection one tendon from each group shall be kept unchanged to de.
-relate the observed data. The procedure velop a history and <
of inspectier, and the e ;n acceptance criteria shall be as follows:
_ -am W
b,,. ;m. (-
e j
)
f 1.
If the measured prestressing force of the selected tendon in a group lies above the prescribed lower limit, the lift-off test is con-sidered to be a positive indication of the sample tendon's accept-ability.
g g
2.
If the measured pre ressing force of the selected tendon in a group lies between the pfescribed lower limit a'nd 90% of the prescribed lower limit, twoMendons, one on each side of this tendon should be checked for their prestressing forces.
If the prestressing forces of these two tendons are above 95% of the prescribed lower limits for the tendons, all three tendons should be restored to the required level of integrity, and the tendon group should be considered as acceptable.
If the measured prestressing force of any two tendons falls below 95% of the prescribed lower limits of the tendons, ad-ditional lift-off testing should be done to detect the cause and extent of such occurrence. The condition should be considered as an indication of abnormal degradation of the containment structure.
3.
If the measured prestressing force of any tendon lies below 90% of the prescribed lower limit, the defective tendon should be completely detensioned and additional lift-off testing should be done 50 as to determine the cause and extent of such occurrence. The condition should be considered as an indication of abnormal degradation of the containment structure.
4 If the average of all measured prestressing forces for each group (corrected for average condition) is found to be less than the mini-mum recuired prestress level at anchorage location for that group, the condition should be considered as abnormal degradation of the containment structure.
5.
If from consecutive surveillance the measured prestressing forces for the same tendon or tendons in a group indicate a trend of pre-stress loss larger than expected and the resulting prestressing forces will be less than the minimum required for the group before the next scheduled surveillance, additional lift-off testing should be done so as to determine the cause and extent of such occurrence.
The condition should be considered as an indication of abnormal degradation of the containment structure.
6.
Unless there is abnonnal degradation of the containment vessel during the first three inspections, the sample population for subsequent inspections shall include at least ] M. tendons (
.6 hoop,'
dome, J _ _ invarte
- vertical, b.
Performing tendon detensioning, inspections, and material tests on a previously stressed tendon from each group. A randomly selected tendon from each group shall be completely detensioned in order to identify broken or damaged wires and determining that over the entire length of the removed wire sample (which should include the broken wire if so identified) that:
1
= -... _ _.
- o. -
,d,q w ag
,nu r-vv4 /tta vinoda c/
6'. C. I, f.. l. h a
i
.n
&,.vo u r,,a 40mes. M4 ^"*' "' M W "# w " "' W 12 g.
/-m
.e
.e i
/
s The tendon wires are free of corrosion, cracks, and damage.
1.
2.
A minimum tensile strength of M $fsi (guaranteed ultimate or at least three wire sampled strength of the tendon material) ex1s s (one from each end and one at mid-length) cut from each removed wire.
T et +a mea + +ha_=ini r teesM e Mk-e et say cae cf the We :
strenge te:t i;M indicstian-t6-aheim:1 d:gWetis,. ef th; c;nt:4n-mant--v :::1 :t u:tm.
Performing tendon retensioning of those tendons detensioned for in-spection to at least force level recorded prior to detensioning or the c.
predicted value, whichever is greater, with the tolerance within minus zero to plus six percent 65, but not to exceed 70% of the guaranteed ulti-f'the tendons. During retensioning @f these ten-s f
mate tensile strength ((d and elongation should be measured simultaneous-dons the changes in loa sly at a mininum of three approximately equally spaced levels of force If the elongation corresponding to a between zero end the seating force.
specific leeds differs by more than 105 from that recorded during the in-sta11ation, an investigation should be made to ensure that the difference a~m hc is not related to wire failures or slip of wires in anchoragest T'
- u. cauaows.s e ino,une..., o as m s zcemru c>.s r <.
es,. m, n r-m ua.
Verifying the OPERABILITY of the s g ng f.,ller grease by &.< ssuring:
i a
d.
% oA ratatiin k pas.
1.
There are no changes in e prisence or'pTfsical appearance of the sheathing filler-gress. /exc,u #eeds 55 of the net _ duct volume, when in-c Amount df crease replaced
?.
jected stathe original installation pressure. Er /o 7. B>
Minimum grease coverage exists for the differenWarts of the ancher-3.
age system, and me Grease leakage detected curing general visual examination of the con-c 4.
tainment exterior surface.
1er material are within the toler-1 5.
The chemical propertie c1-~
P ance limits @ :i'f:? ::..gge 0 - l c 9. o, O e.1 n,c,
scoedin; 0-15 L.r n_ rr-. P ;r t:nd;n: 0"'0 M 5^9 j
b A n '"wr~
m#
f re h,w.wn Water Content
- m.. d '..., ~ ~ t.,. ^.. N.da.; 0','7;
";;T,'
a sn. 4. s. t. t. l../
)
s.mo A x,w Chlorides 0 - 10 ppm ds & vio ona v Nitrates 0 - 10 ppe M w = Sulfides 0-logppm 45%
Wr.ww Reserved Alkalinity 0
50! ef the instelledwelvet-hr.uu.
Gesi ;u,2er;)-
> 0 5 (fe-Old:r gr;;;;)
w v
End Anchorages and Adjacent Concrete Surfaces As an assurance 4.6.1.6.
of the structural integrity of the containment vessel, tendon anchorage as-sembly hardware (such as bearing plates, stressing washers
/<*e AttetWat 1},-for-the cent:4nment-vesseh not
- 2ined in
- pectica Tendon hW; fv?! S
- pection 4#4y-V4: vel h!"*"+ 468 need-to k-perfomed.
anchorages selected for inspection should be visually examined to the extent having_
r practical without dismantling the load bearing components of the anchorages.
s
{
l s.
I
-l Better grease caps of all vertical tendons should be visually inspected to The surrounding concrete l
detect grease leakage or grease cap deformations.
i should also be checked visually for indication of any abnormal conditionj Containment Vessel Surfaces The exterior surface of the con-
[4.6.1.6.3 tainment should be visually exanined to detect areas of large spall, severe scaling, D. cracking in an area of 25 sq. ft. or more, other surface deteriora-tion or disintegration, or grease leakage, each of which can be considered as
{ This inspection shall be performed prior to the Type A containm 1
\\ rate test.
5
,acana r
/w m.a,n -, a ms sm,-m c m a is i
W GUMA "h M V. 4, /, s', l,
Ste n tf acAM 4GL4st Lfd engt.,
w aurt waanen sHA n K
\\
L C1:a>7snion) cl.
4ditc<t<n r 1
df dLg/zsC#Thd inC a c+rw'cf
..Mw:stirMc.
Dnsa cauc iss e cmre,eswr smacrw:4.
(-
~
d l
l
l
, l In response to the licensees' presentation the staff stated that the limited l
database of the statistical analysis did not properly address the staff's l
concerns.
In addition, while the staff agreed with many aspects of the l
licensees' concerns over the current 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO, the staff questioned the need to expand the LC0 for up to 30 days as proposed in the sut,mittals.
Fo110 wing'a caucus by the staff, an extended session was conducted to derive technical specifications that met both the requirements of the staff and the concerns of the licensees. Both the licensees and the staff participated in the l
development of the technical specifications of Enclosure 3. was L
distributed to both licensees at the close of the meeting and it was agreed upon that the technical specifications A) Het the staff's requirements regarding containment vessel structural integrity; B) Represented clarifications of the licensees' original submittals; and C) Net the conclusions of the safety evaluation and significant hazards consideration determination originally submitted by the two licensees.
As/
Douglas V. Pickett, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/s/
Thomas Alexion, Project Manager Project Directorate - III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated j
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION g
.sDocket File e NRC PDR Local PDR J. Sniezek PD4 Reading J. Calvo F. Hebdon D. Pickett T. Alexion 0GC-Rockville E. Jordan B. Grimes C. Tan H. Ashar G. Bagchi J. Hannon D. Wigginton D. Jeng ACRS(10)
T. Martin, RIV PD4 Plant File (h f \\
JCalvo/),*0 PD4/L '-
PD4/SMyQ PDIII Vi PD4/D PNoona DPicrett:sr TAlex on 05/4/89 05/ 4 /89 05/4V89 05/s' /89 l
ord i i
_____ - _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ -