ML20087B736

Follow-up to Request for Addl Info Re GL 92-08,issued Per 10CFR50.54(f) Dtd 941229

ML20087B736
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/04/1995
From:	Burski R ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
GL-92-08, GL-92-8, TAC-M85621, W3F1-95-0108, W3F1-95-108, NUDOCS 9508080250
Download: ML20087B736 (3)

Text

!

.. r e

==~ENTERGY EE"a "'"*"' '" i J

Kdbra LA 70066 l Te! 504 739 6774 l

~

b R. F. Burski j Duvctor

%&as Sater; Wa!crkyc 3 t W3F1-95-0108 A4.05 PR i

i August 4, 1995

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Waterford 3 SES ,

Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 Follow-up to the Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Regarding Generic Letter 92-08, Issued Pursuant to l 10 CFR 50.54(f) dated December 29, 1994 (TAC NO. M85621) l Gentlemen: I Entergy Operations, Inc. issued a letter (W3F1-95-0047) dated March 29, f 1995 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response- to the '

Commission's Request for Additional Information'(RAI) dated December 29, 1994. The Entergy response provided some of the additional information i requested to demonstrate that Thermo-Lag materials and configurations l installed at Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station are representative of tested materials and configurations. Other information requested in the NRC December 29, 1994 letter required sending Waterford 3 installed Thermo- '

Lag samples to a test laboratory (NUCON) for chemical composition testing and material weight and density measurements.  ;

Entergy committed to provide a written supplemental report to the NRC ,

within 60 days of receipt of the NUCON test results. The NRC requested that the supplemental report confirm that the testing effort has been  ;

completed and provide the results of the tests and analyses. The l supplemental report should alsn contain any changes to previously submitted  ;

plans or schedules that result from the tests or analyses. ,

0 9508080250 950804 f) '

PDR ADOCK 05000382 1 V P PDR i0-

. . l rF low-up to the Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Generic Letter 92-08, Issued Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) dated December 29, 1994 )

(TAC NO. M85621) i W3F1-95-0108 j Page 2 August 4, 1995 NUCON was sent three Thermo-Lag samples from three (of the total seven) different installed Thermo-Lag configurations for testing. Each sample was analyzed by a pyrolysis gas chromatographic test in accordance with guidance of ASTM D3452, utilizing a gas chromatograph equipped with a mass selective detector. In addition each sample was tested to determine the material density. Waterford 3 received test results from NUCON on June 6, 1995. ,

The NUCON test report states that inspections of pyrograms (graphs created i when running a pyrolysis gas chromatographic test) indicated that the samples are similar in chemical composition to other Thermo-Lag samples.

However, one sample (from fire damper FD-177) was reported as containing dispropurtionate amounts of characteristic compounds. The laboratory indicated that, while the sample is chemically consistent with other .-

Thermo-Lag samples, the relative amounts of components present are widely  ;

divergent when compared to other Thermo-Lag samples. The initial conclusion indicated that this questionable sample had failed to pass the acceptance criteria.

Waterford 3 verbally communicated the test results to the NRC (Waterford 3 Project Manager) on July 3, 1995, indicating that Waterford 3 was considering conducting additional te. ring of samples to be taken from the installation that conteined the failed .ople (fire damper FD-177).

However, subsequent to receipt of the NUCON report and after the verbal communication with the NRC, the laboratory has provided further information which now indicates that the sample, that was earlier assessed to have failed the test, was in fact not a failure. The laboratory informed Waterford 3 Design Engineering personnel via telecom on July 25, 1995 that -

after factoring in all of the test results from other sites, a. reassessment ,

of the Waterford 3 sample was made. The laboratory no longer considers the relative amounts of components present to be widely divergent when compared to other Thermo-Lag samples.

c Follow-up to the Request.for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Generic Letter 92-08, Issued Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) dated December 29, 1994  :

~(TAC NO. M85621)

W3F1-95-0108 l Page 3

( August 4, 1995' I

NUCON will be providing Waterford 3 with an updated report documenting the .

t reassessed conclusions. NUCON indicates that the updated report should be j submitted to Waterford 3 by mid-August 1995. Waterford 3 will provide the l NRC with the requested supplemental report within 60 days of receipt of the 1 J

NUCON updated report.

If you have any questions concerning the report, please contact f 0.P. Pipkins at (504) 739-6707.  !

I Very truly yours,  ;

l

,4h ((- /d '

R.F. Burski Director s Nuclear Safety i RFB/0PP/ssf cc: L.J. Callan, NRC Region IV '

C.P. Patel, NRC-NRR R.B. McGehee N.S. Reynolds NRC Resident Inspectors Office k

I i

,