ML052640170: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REGARDING MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3, STEAM GENERATOR PLUGGING REPORT (TAC NO. MC6714) | REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REGARDING MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3, STEAM GENERATOR PLUGGING REPORT (TAC NO. MC6714) | ||
==Dear Mr. Christian:== | ==Dear Mr. Christian:== | ||
By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the attached questions. These questions were forwarded electronically to Mr. Paul Willoughby of your staff on September 20, 2005. Please provide your responses within 60 days of the date of this letter. | By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the attached questions. These questions were forwarded electronically to Mr. Paul Willoughby of your staff on September 20, 2005. Please provide your responses within 60 days of the date of this letter. | ||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
/RA/ | |||
George F. Wunder, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-423 | George F. Wunder, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-423 | ||
| Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
As stated cc w/encl: See next page | As stated cc w/encl: See next page | ||
ML052640170 OFFICE | ML052640170 OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-2/SC NAME GWunder CRaynor DRoberts DATE 10/17/05 10/14/05 10/17/05 | ||
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc: | Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc: | ||
Lillilan M. Cuoco, Esquire | Lillilan M. Cuoco, Esquire Senior Counsel Dominion Resources Services, Inc. | ||
Hartford, CT 06106-5127 | Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D. | ||
Rope Ferry Road | Director, Division of Radiation Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 First Selectmen Town of Waterford 15 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. P. J. Parulis Manager - Nuclear Oversight Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. | ||
Mr. W. | Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. W. R. Matthews Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. | ||
Rope Ferry Road | Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. John Markowicz Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 9 Susan Terrace Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Evan W. Woollacott Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 128 Terry's Plain Road Simsbury, CT 06070 Senior Resident Inspector Millstone Power Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 513 Niantic, CT 06357 Mr. G. D. Hicks Director - Nuclear Station Safety and Licensing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. | ||
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Ms. Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 00870 Mr. William D. Meinert Nuclear Engineer Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company Moody Street P.O. Box 426 Ludlow, MA 01056 Mr. J. Alan Price Site Vice President Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. | |||
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Chris Funderburk Director, Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support Dominion Resources Services, Inc. | |||
5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060-6711 Mr. David W. Dodson Licensing Supervisor Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. | |||
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 | |||
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc: | Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc: | ||
| Line 54: | Line 55: | ||
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 REVIEW OF STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTION REPORTS DOCKET NO. 50-423 By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the following questions. | REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 REVIEW OF STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTION REPORTS DOCKET NO. 50-423 By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the following questions. | ||
: 1. | : 1. | ||
On Page 3 of the {{letter dated|date=April 7, 2005|text=letter dated April 7, 2005}} (12-month report), it is stated that possible loose part signals were identified for two tubes in SG B. No associated tube degradation was reported. Were these loose parts removed from SG B? If not, what hindered the removal of these parts? Discuss any other loose parts that may have been left in service. In addition, provide the results of any evaluations performed to ensure the loose parts left in service will not result in a loss of tube integrity for the period between inspections. | |||
2. | |||
Page 3 of the 12-month report stated that manufacturing burnish marks (MBM) were reported for SG B (9) and SG D (6). The MBMs were determined not to be service-induced for both SGs. Discuss whether the MBMs were traceable to the baseline inspection to support that they were not service-induced, and if their signals had undergone any changes. | |||
3. | |||
Due to dents and dings being areas of increased stress, discuss the scope and results of any dent and ding examinations performed during the 9th refueling outage. If no inspections were performed, provide the basis for not performing such inspections. | |||
4. | |||
On Page 4 of the 12-month report, it is reported that two single volumetric indications (SVI) are due to hand-hole installation during SG fabrication. Discuss which tubes (e.g., Row 27, Column 39) are related to the installed hand-holes, and if the SVIs were traceable to the baseline inspection. In addition, discuss whether the SVI signals had undergone any changes. | |||
5. | |||
It was stated on Page 5 of the 12-month report that an SVI in Tube Row 1, Column 1 (R1C1) appeared to be a manufacturing defect similar to tubes plugged prior to startup. | |||
Discuss whether previous rotating pancake coil (RPC) exams of Tube R1C1 have been performed. In addition, discuss any changes the SVI may have undergone from any previous exams. | Discuss whether previous rotating pancake coil (RPC) exams of Tube R1C1 have been performed. In addition, discuss any changes the SVI may have undergone from any previous exams. | ||
6. | |||
Page 5 of the 12-month report indicates that five tubes with SVI and/or PLP signals were plugged due to the area not being accessible for visual inspection. Were the five tubes stabilized in case there was a loose part present? | |||
7. | |||
Discuss whether a visual inspection was performed on Tube R5C1 which contained a SVI with no associated loose part signal (from eddy current). In addition, provide the results of the inspection, if a visual inspection was performed. | |||
8. | |||
Regarding the staffs review summary of the 8th refueling outage dated April 25, 2004, discuss any other restricted or ovalized tubes that may have been identified (even though not plugged) during this outage. | |||
9. | |||
Table 1 of the annual report indicates that RPC was performed for 50% of Row 1 and Row 2 U-bends. Please provide the basis for not expanding the scope of the U-bend inspection given that an indication was found in Row 1. | |||
10. | |||
On Page 4 of the 12-month report, it was indicated that four tubes with indications attributed to Freespan indications, possibly MBMs which could not be confirmed by historical bobbin data were left in service. Please describe these indications in greater detail. If they are not traceable to previous inspections, why were they not considered degraded and plugged?}} | |||
Latest revision as of 15:18, 15 January 2025
| ML052640170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/2005 |
| From: | George Wunder NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | Christian D Dominion Nuclear Connecticut |
| Wunder G, NRR/DLPM, 415-1494 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC6714 | |
| Download: ML052640170 (6) | |
Text
October 17, 2005 Mr. David A. Christian Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060-6711
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REGARDING MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3, STEAM GENERATOR PLUGGING REPORT (TAC NO. MC6714)
Dear Mr. Christian:
By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the attached questions. These questions were forwarded electronically to Mr. Paul Willoughby of your staff on September 20, 2005. Please provide your responses within 60 days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
/RA/
George F. Wunder, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-423
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
ML052640170 OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-2/SC NAME GWunder CRaynor DRoberts DATE 10/17/05 10/14/05 10/17/05
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc:
Lillilan M. Cuoco, Esquire Senior Counsel Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Division of Radiation Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 First Selectmen Town of Waterford 15 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. P. J. Parulis Manager - Nuclear Oversight Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. W. R. Matthews Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. John Markowicz Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 9 Susan Terrace Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Evan W. Woollacott Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 128 Terry's Plain Road Simsbury, CT 06070 Senior Resident Inspector Millstone Power Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 513 Niantic, CT 06357 Mr. G. D. Hicks Director - Nuclear Station Safety and Licensing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Ms. Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 00870 Mr. William D. Meinert Nuclear Engineer Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company Moody Street P.O. Box 426 Ludlow, MA 01056 Mr. J. Alan Price Site Vice President Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Chris Funderburk Director, Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060-6711 Mr. David W. Dodson Licensing Supervisor Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 cc:
Mr. S. E. Scace Assistant to the Site Vice President Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. M. J. Wilson Manager - Nuclear Training Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. A. J. Jordan, Jr.
Director - Nuclear Engineering Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. S. P. Sarver Director - Nuclear Station Operations and Maintenance Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 REVIEW OF STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTION REPORTS DOCKET NO. 50-423 By letters dated May 3, 2004, and April 7, 2005, respectively, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submitted the 15-day steam generator (SG) plugging report in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) Sections 4.4.5.5.a and 6.9.2, and the 12-month SG tube inspection report in accordance with TS Sections 4.4.5.5.b and 6.9.2. In order to complete its review of the reports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requires responses to the following questions.
- 1.
On Page 3 of the letter dated April 7, 2005 (12-month report), it is stated that possible loose part signals were identified for two tubes in SG B. No associated tube degradation was reported. Were these loose parts removed from SG B? If not, what hindered the removal of these parts? Discuss any other loose parts that may have been left in service. In addition, provide the results of any evaluations performed to ensure the loose parts left in service will not result in a loss of tube integrity for the period between inspections.
2.
Page 3 of the 12-month report stated that manufacturing burnish marks (MBM) were reported for SG B (9) and SG D (6). The MBMs were determined not to be service-induced for both SGs. Discuss whether the MBMs were traceable to the baseline inspection to support that they were not service-induced, and if their signals had undergone any changes.
3.
Due to dents and dings being areas of increased stress, discuss the scope and results of any dent and ding examinations performed during the 9th refueling outage. If no inspections were performed, provide the basis for not performing such inspections.
4.
On Page 4 of the 12-month report, it is reported that two single volumetric indications (SVI) are due to hand-hole installation during SG fabrication. Discuss which tubes (e.g., Row 27, Column 39) are related to the installed hand-holes, and if the SVIs were traceable to the baseline inspection. In addition, discuss whether the SVI signals had undergone any changes.
5.
It was stated on Page 5 of the 12-month report that an SVI in Tube Row 1, Column 1 (R1C1) appeared to be a manufacturing defect similar to tubes plugged prior to startup.
Discuss whether previous rotating pancake coil (RPC) exams of Tube R1C1 have been performed. In addition, discuss any changes the SVI may have undergone from any previous exams.
6.
Page 5 of the 12-month report indicates that five tubes with SVI and/or PLP signals were plugged due to the area not being accessible for visual inspection. Were the five tubes stabilized in case there was a loose part present?
7.
Discuss whether a visual inspection was performed on Tube R5C1 which contained a SVI with no associated loose part signal (from eddy current). In addition, provide the results of the inspection, if a visual inspection was performed.
8.
Regarding the staffs review summary of the 8th refueling outage dated April 25, 2004, discuss any other restricted or ovalized tubes that may have been identified (even though not plugged) during this outage.
9.
Table 1 of the annual report indicates that RPC was performed for 50% of Row 1 and Row 2 U-bends. Please provide the basis for not expanding the scope of the U-bend inspection given that an indication was found in Row 1.
10.
On Page 4 of the 12-month report, it was indicated that four tubes with indications attributed to Freespan indications, possibly MBMs which could not be confirmed by historical bobbin data were left in service. Please describe these indications in greater detail. If they are not traceable to previous inspections, why were they not considered degraded and plugged?