ML020320010
| ML020320010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2002 |
| From: | Rani Franovich Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs |
| To: | Tuckman M Duke Energy Corp |
| Franovich R, NRR/RLSB, 415-1868 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML020320010 (6) | |
Text
January 28, 2002 Mr. M. S. Tuckman Executive Vice-President Nuclear Generation Duke Energy Corporation PO Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA)
Dear Mr. Tuckman:
By letter dated June 13, 2001, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review an application, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in this license renewal application and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) is from the following section(s) of the LRA:
Section 3.2, Aging Management of Engineered Safety Features Please provide a schedule by letter, or electronic mail for the submittal of your response within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the response to provide clarification of the staffs request for additional information.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Rani L. Franovich, Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413 and 50-414
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
Mr. M. S. Tuckman Executive Vice-President Nuclear Generation Duke Energy Corporation PO Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Tuckman:
By letter dated June 13, 2001, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review an application, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in this license renewal application and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) is from the following section(s) of the LRA:
Section 3.2, Aging Management of Engineered Safety Features Please provide a schedule by letter, or electronic mail for the submittal of your response within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the response to provide clarification of the staffs request for additional information.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Rani L. Franovich, Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413 and 50-414
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
See next page Document Name: C:\\Program Files\\Adobe\\Acrobat 4.0\\PDF Output\\Duke RAI - Mechanical -
ESF~.wpd OFFICE PM:RLEP:DRIP LA:DRIP SC:RLEP:DRIP BC:RLEP:DRIP NAME RFranovich EGHylton PTKuo CIGrimes DATE 01/24/2002 01/24/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
McGuire & Catawba Nuclear Stations, Units 1 and 2 Mr. Gary Gilbert Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Anne Cottington, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse York, South Carolina 29745 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Ms. Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 Mr. Robert L. Gill, Jr.
Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. Alan Nelson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P. O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4830 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. Virgil R. Autry, Director Dept of Health and Envir Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Mr. C. Jeffrey Thomas Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. L. A. Keller Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV VP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinghouse Electric Company 6000 Fairview Road - 12th Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director North Carolina Dept of Env, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Michael T. Cash Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation
McGuire Nuclear Site 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Dr. John M. Barry Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection 700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Mr. Gregory D. Robison Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Mary Olson Nuclear Information & Resource Service Southeast Office P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 Paul Gunter Nuclear Information & Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League P.O. Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 Don Moniak Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Aiken Office P.O. Box 3487 Aiken, South Carolina 29802-3487
Request for Additional Information McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 3.2 Aging Management of Engineered Safety Features 3.2-1 Since closure bolting is exposed to air, moisture, and leaking fluid (boric acid) environments, it is subject to the aging effects of loss of material and crack initiation and growth. Tables in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 do not address these aging effects for closure bolting in these systems. Please indicate where in the LRA the AMR results for closure bolting are documented, or provide a justification for excluding closure bolting from an AMR, the results of which are documented in the referenced tables of the LRA.
Similarly, Table 3.5-3 provides no information to address the cracking initiation and growth from SCC for high strength low-alloy bolts. Last item on page 3.5-18 of Table 3.5-1 of the SRP-LR addresses the issue of bolting integrity for ASME Class I piping and components supports. It indicates that no further evaluation is required if there is a bolting integrity program to address the cracking initiation and growth from SCC for high strength low-alloy bolts. State whether there is such a program and provide the reference.
3.2-2 The application does not define any of the aging effect listed in Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-8. Paragraph 3.2.1, Aging Management Review Results Tables, Column 5 states that aging effects identification process is consistent with the process used in Oconee Nuclear Station. The Oconee application defined each aging effect in its Appendix C.
The staff requests that the applicant indicate if the aging effects identification process is identical to the one described in the Oconee LRA and confirm that the definitions provided in Appendix C of the Oconee LRA apply to the Catawba/McGuire LRA as well.
If there are any differences between the Oconee and Catawba/McGuire LRAs, please identify them.
3.2-3 In Table 3.2-2, on page 3.2-22, the applicant specifies the Fluid Leak Management Program and the Inspection Program for Civil Engineering Structures and Components as the aging management programs (AMPs) for carbon steel valve bodies. However, on page 3.2-23, the applicant specifies only the Inspection Program for Civil Engineering Structures and Components as the AMP for carbon steel valve bodies. Does the Fluid Leak Management Program Scope include mechanical systems and components outside the reactor building? Does the LRA reflect an assumption that boric acid corrosion can occur only in a reactor building environment and not in a sheltered environment? Or are the steam generator wet lay-up system carbon steel valve bodies in a sheltered environment that houses no potential sources of leaking borated water?
3.2-4 In Table 3.2-7, the applicant identifies that the internal surfaces of the carbon steel residual heat removal (ND) heat exchanger (HX) shells and ND pump seal water HX shells are both exposed to treated water environments. Clarify either by reference to appropriate information in the application or by discussion why cracking is identified as an applicable aging effect for the ND HX shells but not for the ND pump seal water HX shells.
3.2-5 In Table 3.2-8, you identify that the external surfaces of some of the carbon steel piping and valve bodies in the safety injection (NI) systems are exposed to sheltered air environments. Clarify either by reference to appropriate information in the application or by discussion why loss of material is identified as an applicable aging effect for the carbon steel NI piping that is exposed sheltered air but not for the carbon steel NI valve bodies that are exposed to the same environment.
3.2-6 Table 3.2-2, Aging Management Review Results - Containment Isolation System, on page 3.2-16 of the LRA indicates that Ice Condenser Refrigeration System carbon steel piping exposed to the reactor building external environment (the third Pipe entry from the top of the page) has no identified aging effects. The staff questions why this piping was not identified as susceptible to loss of material and subject to the Fluid Leak Management Program and the Inspection Program for Civil Engineering Structures and Components. This finding appears to be inconsistent with the LRAs treatment of similar or identical materials and components in the same environment.
DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY RLSB RF E. Hylton E-MAIL:
PUBLIC J. Johnson W. Borchardt D. Matthews C. Carpenter C. Grimes B. Zalcman J. Strosnider (RidsNrrDe)
E. Imbro G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo C. Holden P. Shemanski S. Rosenberg G. Holahan B. Boger D. Thatcher G. Galletti B. Thomas J. Moore R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy W. McDowell S. Droggitis N. Dudley RLEP Staff R. Martin C. Patel C. Julian (RII)
R. Haag (RII)
A. Fernandez (OGC)
J. Wilson M. Khanna C. Munson R. Elliott G. Georgeiv J. Lehning Y. Li Z. Fu