ML20129F495

Requests Addl Info to Complete Review of TS Change Request to Delete Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Insps at Plant. Requests Response within 60 Days of Ltr Receipt

ML20129F495
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	10/02/1996
From:	Alexion T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Hutchinson C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
References
TAC-M92062, NUDOCS 9610040160
Download: ML20129F495 (5)

Text

1

October 2, 1996

\

l Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson l Vice President, Operations ANO l Entergy Operations, Inc.

) 1448 S. R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.'S TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST TO DELETE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP FLYWHEEL INSPECTIONS - ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NO. M92062) l

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

i By letter dated April 4, 1995, Entergy Operations, Inc. submitted the l subject request. The NRC staff has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. Please respond to the enclosed request for l additional information within 60 days from receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

i Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 I l

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information l

l cc w/ encl: See next page  !

l l DISTRIBUT103:

[ Docket File- PUBLIC PD4-1 r/f J. Roe E. Adensam (EGA1) T. Alexion l J. Dyer, RIV ACRS OGC (15B18)

! Pc-Tress 4e@d W. Beckner J. Strosnider Document Name: AR92062.RAI 7 0FC PM/PD9F1 _ LA/PD4-1 4 BC/Ek),/1,, ,

NAME TAlexipME PTresslb/I dr DATE /h / /96 in/ / /9[ </d/S,/96 COPY [YEh/NO YES @ YES/N0 u 0FFICLAL RECORD COPY PA28anns8,8!Ao MRC FILE CENTER CSPY

'l . p re h/ g

\

j-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

& WASHINGTON D.C. 3088H001

\*****/ October 2, 1996 Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Vice President, Operations ANO Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S..R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.'S TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST TO DELETE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP FLYWHEEL INSPECTIONS - ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NO. M92062)

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

By letter dated April 4, 1995, Entergy Operations, Inc. submitted the subject request. The NRC staff has determined that additional information is needed to. complete its review. Please respond to the enclosed request for additional information within 60 days from receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, Vagu d. ~:w)

Thomas W. Alexion, Project Ma ager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: See next page

I .

O I

T Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Entergy Operations, Inc. Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2 cc:

Executive Vice President Vice President, Operations Support

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 J&ckson, MS 39286-199 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Director, Division of Radiation P. O. Box 651 Control and Emergency Management Jackson, MS 39205 Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 l Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 l

l Winston & Strawn l 1400 L Street, N.W.

l Washington, DC 20005-3502 Manager, Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatone Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801 l

. t 9

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DELETION OF REACTOR COOLANT PUMP FLYWHEEL INSPECTIONS i Questions Related To SIR-94-080. Rev.1. " Relaxation of Reactor Coolant Pumn Flywheel Insnection Reautrements." March 1995

1. Section 3.0, Previous Inspection Results for RCP [ Reactor Coolant Pump]

Flywheels, Pgs. 3-1 to 3-12: Provide additional information if the l ultrasonic (UT) examinations at the Combustion Engineering owners Group (CEOG) member plants were qualified relative to inspection of RCP flywheels. Regardless whether a formal qualification was performed, please include in your response the following:

a. Any information supporting qualification of the examinations of RCP flywheels.

( b. Any information supporting qualification of the personnel performing the examinations of RCP flywheels.

t

! c. Any information regarding the degree of uncertainty in UT  !

measurements based on the procedures and personnel qualification basis.

2. Section 3.0, Previous Inspection Results for RCP Flywheels, Pgs. 3-1 to 3-12: The fatigue analysis is dependent on the prembe that UT equipment used for examinations of RCP flywheels at these facilities is capable of accurately detecting and sizing a 0.25-inch long near-surface flaw.

Provide your basis supporting the probability of detection (POD) for the examinations performed. Provide details on how the POD values were determined, qualified, and used in concluding the assumed size of the initial flaw. Also, provide a demonstration of the CE0G member plants' i UT detection capability in not missing a flaw size of 0.25 inch. '

3. Section 6.1.1, Centrifugal Stresses, Pg. 6-1: It was stated in curve-t fitting the stress distribution that a radial distance of 2 inches from i the keyway was considered in order to obtain an accurate fit. Did you  :

! only consider the stress distribution within this 2-range in the fracture mechanics antlysis or did you exclude this part of stress distribution in your analysis?

4. Section 6.1.1, Centrifugal Stresses, Pg. 6-1: The finite element method (FEM) was employed in the stress analyses, but not in the fracture mechanics analyses. Support your fracture mechanics results by modifying the FEM model to include the postulated crack and then input the crack face. pressure using the complete tangential stress distributions for the critical keyway regions in Figures 5-28 through 5-33 or demonstrate that the simplified models used are conservative.

l

ENCLOSURE

, y , . - _ ..__m, y _ .r_,_ . ,_y.. -

=- . _- - -.. - . .-.-

~

(.-

5. Section 6.3, Allowable Flaw Size Determination, Pg. 6-6: It was stated l

that the stress intensity distribution for the centrifugal and the l shrink-fit stresses are compared separately with the allowable fracture toughness to determine the allowable flaw sizes. Under normal operating conditions, the staff believes that contributions from both centrifugal and shrink-fit stresses to the applied stress intensity factors are comparable and should be combined. Figures 6-3 through 6-8 indicate that when the combined effect is considered the ASME Code criteria may not be met even for the initial crack size of 0.25 inch. Clarify this. Also, provide a revised copy of Figures 6-3 and 6-14 by adding the stress intensity due to shrink fit at the proper speed to the stress intensity 1 due to centrifugal load.  !

l

6. Provide information on the remaining shrink fit for accident conditions l

for all flywheels.

1

7. Provide past RCP flywheel maintenance records in terms of maintenance l frequency and level of disassembly involved.  !

! 8. Discuss the test results from the initial examination on Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit l's RCP flywheels in terms of detection and sizing capability of the acoustic emission methodology used and the future inspection plan 4 for these flywheels. '

i I

l l