ML15062A447: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Mr. C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 1 O, 2015 Southern Nuclear Operating  
{{#Wiki_filter:Mr. C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 1 O, 2015 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1295, Bin -038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295  
: Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1295, Bin -038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295  


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 (VEGP) -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPRING 2014 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MF4987)  
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 (VEGP) -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPRING 2014 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MF4987)  


==Dear Mr. Pierce:==
==Dear Mr. Pierce:==
By letter dated October 3, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML 14276A430),
By letter dated October 3, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML 14276A430), Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee, SNC) submitted information summarizing the results of the spring 2014 steam generator inspedions performed at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. These inspections were performed during refueling outage 18. We have determined that additional information is needed, as noted below, in order to complete the review. 1. SNC's letter stated that some of the indications identified during this outage have been present for several cycles. Please clarify whether the indications found on the tubes at row 24, column 66 (R24C66), R40C57, and R49C89 were present in prior inspections since they do not seem to have been reported in previous inspection reports. 2. Previously, an indication was reported in R32C35 in SG 2. During RFO 18, this indication was not reported.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee, SNC) submitted information summarizing the results of the spring 2014 steam generator inspedions performed at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. These inspections were performed during refueling outage 18. We have determined that additional information is needed, as noted below, in order to complete the review. 1. SNC's letter stated that some of the indications identified during this outage have been present for several cycles. Please clarify whether the indications found on the tubes at row 24, column 66 (R24C66),
Please discuss. 3. Please confirm that 199 indications of anti-vibration bar (AVB) wear were detected in 110 tubes in SG 4. Please confirm that 128 indications of AVB wear were detected in 75 tubes in SG 1. 4. SNC's letter stated that some indications in SG 2 were inspected during RFO 18. Were only the indications actually listed in Table 5 inspected?
R40C57, and R49C89 were present in prior inspections since they do not seem to have been reported in previous inspection reports.  
: 2. Previously, an indication was reported in R32C35 in SG 2. During RFO 18, this indication was not reported.
Please discuss.  
: 3. Please confirm that 199 indications of anti-vibration bar (AVB) wear were detected in 110 tubes in SG 4. Please confirm that 128 indications of AVB wear were detected in 75 tubes in SG 1. 4. SNC's letter stated that some indications in SG 2 were inspected during RFO 18. Were only the indications actually listed in Table 5 inspected?
Were those inspections performed using only a rotating probe? If more inspections were performed, please discuss the scope and results of those inspections (include all information required by the technical specifications for these inspections).
Were those inspections performed using only a rotating probe? If more inspections were performed, please discuss the scope and results of those inspections (include all information required by the technical specifications for these inspections).
* 5. In Table 5 of SNC's letter, there are several indications in SG 2 at the baffle plates. Please discuss the cause <?f these indications (e.g., pressure pulse cleaning).  
* 5. In Table 5 of SNC's letter, there are several indications in SG 2 at the baffle plates. Please discuss the cause <?f these indications (e.g., pressure pulse cleaning).  
Line 38: Line 32:
C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two wear indications are discussed.
C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two wear indications are discussed.
Please discuss the cause of these indications.
Please discuss the cause of these indications.
If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present?
If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present? If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or
If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or
* that is nonconducting)?
* that is nonconducting)?
Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, Y'Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, Y'Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
Line 45: Line 38:
C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two new wear indications are discussed.
C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two new wear indications are discussed.
Please discuss the cause of these indications.
Please discuss the cause of these indications.
If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present?
If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present? If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since .eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or that is nonconducting)?
If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since .eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or that is nonconducting)?
Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC LPL2-1 R/F RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrLASFigueroa Resource RidsNrrPMVogtle Resource ADAM s Accession No.: ML 15062A447 OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1  
PUBLIC LPL2-1 R/F RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrLASFigueroa Resource RidsNrrPMVogtle Resource ADAM s Accession No.: ML 15062A447 OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1  
/PM DORL/LPL2-1  
/PM DORL/LPL2-1  
/LA NAME RMartin SFigueroa DATE . 03/10/15 03/09/15 Sincerely,  
/LA NAME RMartin SFigueroa DATE . 03/10/15 03/09/15 Sincerely, /RA/ Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrDorllpl2-1 Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource AJohnson, NRR DE/ESGB/BC DORL/LPL2-1  
/RA/ Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrDorllpl2-1 Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource  
: AJohnson, NRR DE/ESGB/BC DORL/LPL2-1  
/BC GKulesa RPascarelli 02/23/15*
/BC GKulesa RPascarelli 02/23/15*
03/10/15
03/10/15
* Bv memo dated. DORL/LPL2-1/PM RMartin 03/10/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY}}
* Bv memo dated. DORL/LPL2-1/PM RMartin 03/10/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY}}

Revision as of 07:26, 9 July 2018

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 (VEGP)- Request for Additional Information on Spring 2014 Steam Generator Tube Inspections (TAC No. MF4987)
ML15062A447
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 03/10/2015
From: Martin R E
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Pierce C R
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R E
References
TAC MF4987
Download: ML15062A447 (3)
v • d • e


Text

Mr. C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 1 O, 2015 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1295, Bin -038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295

SUBJECT:

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 (VEGP) -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPRING 2014 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MF4987)

Dear Mr. Pierce:

By letter dated October 3, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML 14276A430), Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee, SNC) submitted information summarizing the results of the spring 2014 steam generator inspedions performed at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. These inspections were performed during refueling outage 18. We have determined that additional information is needed, as noted below, in order to complete the review. 1. SNC's letter stated that some of the indications identified during this outage have been present for several cycles. Please clarify whether the indications found on the tubes at row 24, column 66 (R24C66), R40C57, and R49C89 were present in prior inspections since they do not seem to have been reported in previous inspection reports. 2. Previously, an indication was reported in R32C35 in SG 2. During RFO 18, this indication was not reported.

Please discuss. 3. Please confirm that 199 indications of anti-vibration bar (AVB) wear were detected in 110 tubes in SG 4. Please confirm that 128 indications of AVB wear were detected in 75 tubes in SG 1. 4. SNC's letter stated that some indications in SG 2 were inspected during RFO 18. Were only the indications actually listed in Table 5 inspected?

Were those inspections performed using only a rotating probe? If more inspections were performed, please discuss the scope and results of those inspections (include all information required by the technical specifications for these inspections).

  • 5. In Table 5 of SNC's letter, there are several indications in SG 2 at the baffle plates. Please discuss the cause <?f these indications (e.g., pressure pulse cleaning).
6. Please confirm that all tube plugs were present and in the proper locations.
7. Please discuss the results of the channel head in.spections.

C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two wear indications are discussed.

Please discuss the cause of these indications.

If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present? If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or

  • that is nonconducting)?

Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, Y'Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

\

C.R. Pierce 8. At the bottom of page E-2 of SNC's report, two new wear indications are discussed.

Please discuss the cause of these indications.

If the suspected cause is a loose part or foreign object, were any visual inspections performed to ensure the part was no longer present? If not, how was the integrity of this tube assessed for future operation (since .eddy current examinations may not detect a part that has moved away from the tube or that is nonconducting)?

Docket No. 50-424 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPL2-1 R/F RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrLASFigueroa Resource RidsNrrPMVogtle Resource ADAM s Accession No.: ML 15062A447 OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1

/PM DORL/LPL2-1

/LA NAME RMartin SFigueroa DATE . 03/10/15 03/09/15 Sincerely, /RA/ Robert Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrDorllpl2-1 Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource AJohnson, NRR DE/ESGB/BC DORL/LPL2-1

/BC GKulesa RPascarelli 02/23/15*

03/10/15

  • Bv memo dated. DORL/LPL2-1/PM RMartin 03/10/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15062A447&oldid=864600"