NL-08-0146, Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 02/07/2008 | | issue date = 02/07/2008 | ||
| title = Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information | | title = Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information | ||
| author name = Jones D | | author name = Jones D | ||
| author affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc | | author affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| document type = Letter type:NL | | document type = Letter type:NL | ||
| page count = 6 | | page count = 6 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Response to RAI | |||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:David H. Jones Southern Vice President Operating Company. Engineering 40 Invemess Center Birmingham. | {{#Wiki_filter:David H. Jones Southern Nuclear Vice President Operating Company. Inc. | ||
Alabama 35242 Tel Fax SOUTHERNA February 7, 2008 COMPANY Energy to Serve : | Engineering 40 Invemess Center Parkway Birmingham. Alabama 35242 Tel 205.992.5984 Fax 205.992.0341 SOUTHERNA February 7, 2008 COMPANY Energy to Serve :YourWorU'" | ||
By letter NL-06-1766, dated August 17, 2006 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report which included the inspection results required by Technical Specification 5.6.10. Subsequently, on December 20,2007 the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) regarding the 2006 Steam Generator Inspections. | Docket No.: 50-348 NL-08-0146 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Ladies and Gentlemen: | ||
Enclosed is SNC's response to the NRC RAls. If you have any questions, please advise. | By letter NL-06-1766, dated August 17, 2006 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report which included the inspection results required by Technical Specification 5.6.10. | ||
-Engineering DHJ/JLS/phr | Subsequently, on December 20,2007 the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) regarding the 2006 Steam Generator Inspections. Enclosed is SNC's response to the NRC RAls. | ||
If you have any questions, please advise. | |||
D. H. Jone Vice President - Engineering DHJ/JLS/phr | |||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
Response to Request for Additional Information | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-08-0146 Page 2 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. J. T. Gasser, Executive Vice President Mr. J. R. Johnson, Vice President - Plant Farley Mr. D. H. Jones, Vice President - Engineering RType: CFA04.054; LC# 14719 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. V. M. McCree, Acting Regional Administrator Ms. K. R. Cotton, NRR Project Manager - Farley Mr. E. L. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector - Farley | |||
-Plant Farley Mr. D. H. Jones, Vice President | |||
-Engineering RType: CFA04.054; LC# 14719 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. V. M. McCree, Acting Regional Administrator Ms. K. R. Cotton, NRR Project Manager -Farley Mr. E. L. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector | Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information | ||
-Farley Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant -Unit Inservice Inspection Summary Response to Request for Additional Response to Request for Additional Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant -Unit Inservice Inspection Summary Response to Request for Additional Response to Request for Additional NRC Request 1 Please clarifY the statement in the report that no indications of wear were observed. | |||
Does this include wear caused by loose parts? SNC Response to Request 1 No wear indications were observed from loose parts or antivibration bars ( | Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information NRC Request 1 Please clarifY the statement in the report that no indications of wear were observed. Does this include wear caused by loose parts? | ||
SNC Response to Request 1 No wear indications were observed from loose parts or antivibration bars (AVBs). | |||
NRC Reg uest 2 Please describe the secondary side inspections performed. | |||
SNC Response to Request 2 | SNC Response to Request 2 | ||
* Sludge lancing in all three steam generators (SGs) | * Sludge lancing in all three steam generators (SGs) | ||
* Foreign Object Search and Retrieval (Bundle Annulus and Tube lane) in all three SGs | * Foreign Object Search and Retrieval (Bundle Annulus and Tube lane) in all three SGs | ||
* Shell Wrapper and Annulus visual inspections in all three SGs | * Shell Wrapper and Annulus visual inspections in all three SGs | ||
* Upper bundle In-Bundle inspections to inspect support plate ligaments and for blockage of the quatrefoil-shaped holes in the tube support plates (SG A) | * Upper bundle In-Bundle inspections to inspect support plate ligaments and for blockage of the quatrefoil-shaped holes in the tube support plates (SG A) th | ||
* Visual inspection, through the upper handhole of 7 | * Visual inspection, through the upper handhole of 7 tube support plate, of support plate ligaments and for blockage of the quatrefoil-shaped holes in the tube support plate (SG A) | ||
* 100% top of | * 100% top of tubesheet In-Bundle visual inspection in all three SGs | ||
* Wrapper Drop inspection in all three SGs NRC Request 3 Were any Potential Loose Parts (PLPs) identified during the eddy current testing? SNC Response to Request 3 No PLPs were identified with eddy current testing during | * Wrapper Drop inspection in all three SGs NRC Request 3 Were any Potential Loose Parts (PLPs) identified during the eddy current testing? | ||
Page 1 of3 | SNC Response to Request 3 No PLPs were identified with eddy current testing during 1R20. Eddy current testing was also performed for loose parts identified during secondary side inspections. | ||
Page 1 of3 | |||
Response to Request for Additional NRC Request 4 Were any of the loose parts identified in the U1R 18, | Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information NRC Request 4 Were any of the loose parts identified in the U1R 18, U I R19 or U1R20 inspections, left in the steam generator during the subsequent operating cycle? If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts: | ||
* Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts. | * Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts. | ||
* The source or nature of the loose parts, ifknown. | * The source or nature of the loose parts, ifknown. | ||
* How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service? SNC Response to Request 4 Requested Were any of the loose parts identified in the | * How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service? | ||
SNC Response to Request 4 Requested Item: | |||
Were any of the loose parts identified in the U IR 18, UI R 19 or U IR20 inspections, left in the steam generator during the subsequent operating cycle? | |||
===Response=== | |||
Yes. An attempt was made to retrieve all loose parts. Those parts not removed (left remaining in the SGs) were very small or locked in the hard sludge. | |||
Requested Item: | |||
If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts: | |||
* Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts. | * Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts. | ||
No wear (tube damage) indications were observed either with eddy current testing or visual Requested If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose | |||
===Response=== | |||
No wear (tube damage) indications were observed either with eddy current testing or by visual inspection. | |||
Requested Item: | |||
If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts: | |||
* The source or nature of the loose parts, if known. | * The source or nature of the loose parts, if known. | ||
Machining remnants and spiral wound gaskets were the major Requested If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose | |||
* How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service? Response | ===Response=== | ||
An attempt was made to retrieve all loose parts. Those parts not removed (left remaining in the SGs) were very small or locked in the hard sludge. An engineering evaluation was Page 2 of3 Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information performed on all loose parts left in the SOs. The engineering evaluation concluded that there would be no adverse affect to the steam generators during the next cycle. During I R21, a 100% top of tubesheet visual inspection was performed for loose parts. No wear indications were observed. | Machining remnants and spiral wound gaskets were the major contributors. | ||
NRC Request 5 Please clarify the bullet stating "Plus point of dents/dings | Requested Item: | ||
>= 2 volts." Did this include all dents and dings with greater than or equal to 2 volts or was it a sampling inspection? | If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts: | ||
SNC Response to Request 5 All dents and dings 2.00 volts and greater as measured by the bobbin coil, from the current inspection and/or previous inspections (base line & first lSI), were rotating pancake coil (RPC) inspected with the plus point probe. Page 3 of3}} | * How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service? | ||
===Response=== | |||
An attempt was made to retrieve all loose parts. Those parts not removed (left remaining in the SGs) were very small or locked in the hard sludge. An engineering evaluation was Page 2 of3 | |||
Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information performed on all loose parts left in the SOs. The engineering evaluation concluded that there would be no adverse affect to the steam generators during the next cycle. | |||
During I R21, a 100% top of tubesheet visual inspection was performed for loose parts. | |||
No wear indications were observed. | |||
NRC Request 5 Please clarify the bullet stating "Plus point of dents/dings >= 2 volts." Did this include all dents and dings with greater than or equal to 2 volts or was it a sampling inspection? | |||
SNC Response to Request 5 All dents and dings 2.00 volts and greater as measured by the bobbin coil, from the current inspection and/or previous inspections (base line & first lSI), were rotating pancake coil (RPC) inspected with the plus point probe. | |||
Page 3 of3}} | |||
Latest revision as of 07:08, 13 March 2020
| ML080380308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/2008 |
| From: | David Jones Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NL-08-0146 | |
| Download: ML080380308 (6) | |
Text
David H. Jones Southern Nuclear Vice President Operating Company. Inc.
Engineering 40 Invemess Center Parkway Birmingham. Alabama 35242 Tel 205.992.5984 Fax 205.992.0341 SOUTHERNA February 7, 2008 COMPANY Energy to Serve :YourWorU'"
Docket No.: 50-348 NL-08-0146 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Ladies and Gentlemen:
By letter NL-06-1766, dated August 17, 2006 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted the Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report which included the inspection results required by Technical Specification 5.6.10.
Subsequently, on December 20,2007 the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) regarding the 2006 Steam Generator Inspections. Enclosed is SNC's response to the NRC RAls.
If you have any questions, please advise.
D. H. Jone Vice President - Engineering DHJ/JLS/phr
Enclosure:
Response to Request for Additional Information
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-08-0146 Page 2 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. J. T. Gasser, Executive Vice President Mr. J. R. Johnson, Vice President - Plant Farley Mr. D. H. Jones, Vice President - Engineering RType: CFA04.054; LC# 14719 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. V. M. McCree, Acting Regional Administrator Ms. K. R. Cotton, NRR Project Manager - Farley Mr. E. L. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector - Farley
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Summary Report Response to Request for Additional Information Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information NRC Request 1 Please clarifY the statement in the report that no indications of wear were observed. Does this include wear caused by loose parts?
SNC Response to Request 1 No wear indications were observed from loose parts or antivibration bars (AVBs).
NRC Reg uest 2 Please describe the secondary side inspections performed.
SNC Response to Request 2
- Sludge lancing in all three steam generators (SGs)
- Upper bundle In-Bundle inspections to inspect support plate ligaments and for blockage of the quatrefoil-shaped holes in the tube support plates (SG A) th
- Visual inspection, through the upper handhole of 7 tube support plate, of support plate ligaments and for blockage of the quatrefoil-shaped holes in the tube support plate (SG A)
- 100% top of tubesheet In-Bundle visual inspection in all three SGs
- Wrapper Drop inspection in all three SGs NRC Request 3 Were any Potential Loose Parts (PLPs) identified during the eddy current testing?
SNC Response to Request 3 No PLPs were identified with eddy current testing during 1R20. Eddy current testing was also performed for loose parts identified during secondary side inspections.
Page 1 of3
Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information NRC Request 4 Were any of the loose parts identified in the U1R 18, U I R19 or U1R20 inspections, left in the steam generator during the subsequent operating cycle? If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts:
- Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts.
- The source or nature of the loose parts, ifknown.
- How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service?
SNC Response to Request 4 Requested Item:
Were any of the loose parts identified in the U IR 18, UI R 19 or U IR20 inspections, left in the steam generator during the subsequent operating cycle?
Response
Yes. An attempt was made to retrieve all loose parts. Those parts not removed (left remaining in the SGs) were very small or locked in the hard sludge.
Requested Item:
If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts:
- Indications of tube damage associated with the loose parts.
Response
No wear (tube damage) indications were observed either with eddy current testing or by visual inspection.
Requested Item:
If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts:
- The source or nature of the loose parts, if known.
Response
Machining remnants and spiral wound gaskets were the major contributors.
Requested Item:
If so, please discuss the following regarding those loose parts:
- How will tube integrity be maintained with the loose parts left in service?
Response
An attempt was made to retrieve all loose parts. Those parts not removed (left remaining in the SGs) were very small or locked in the hard sludge. An engineering evaluation was Page 2 of3
Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information performed on all loose parts left in the SOs. The engineering evaluation concluded that there would be no adverse affect to the steam generators during the next cycle.
During I R21, a 100% top of tubesheet visual inspection was performed for loose parts.
No wear indications were observed.
NRC Request 5 Please clarify the bullet stating "Plus point of dents/dings >= 2 volts." Did this include all dents and dings with greater than or equal to 2 volts or was it a sampling inspection?
SNC Response to Request 5 All dents and dings 2.00 volts and greater as measured by the bobbin coil, from the current inspection and/or previous inspections (base line & first lSI), were rotating pancake coil (RPC) inspected with the plus point probe.
Page 3 of3