ML020980289

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RAI, Concerning Proposed Relief Requests for ASME Section XI Requirements
ML020980289
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 04/08/2002
From: Starkey R
NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To: Clifford J
NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
Starkey D
References
TAC MB2561
Download: ML020980289 (2)


Text

April 8, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: James W. Clifford, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Robert D. Starkey, Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/

Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1, CONCERNING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTS FOR ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS (TAC NO. MB2561)

The attached RAI was transmitted by e-mail on March 14, 2002, to Mr. Mike OKeefe of North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the licensee). The RAI was transmitted to facilitate the technical review being conducted by NRR and to support a conference call with the licensee to discuss the RAI. The RAI was related to the licensees submittal dated July 27, 2001, concerning proposed relief requests from ASME Section XI requirements. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensees request.

Docket Nos. 50-293

Attachment:

Request for Additional Information, Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Proposed Relief Requests for ASME Section XI Requirements

April 8, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: James W. Clifford, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Robert D. Starkey, Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/

Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1, CONCERNING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTS FOR ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS (TAC NO. MB2561)

The attached RAI was transmitted by e-mail on March 14, 2002, to Mr. Mike OKeefe of North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the licensee). The RAI was transmitted to facilitate the technical review being conducted by NRR and to support a conference call with the licensee to discuss the RAI. The RAI was related to the licensees submittal dated July 27, 2001, concerning proposed relief requests from ASME Section XI requirements. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensees request.

Docket Nos. 50-293

Attachment:

Request for Additional Information, Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Proposed Relief Requests for ASME Section XI Requirements DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC J. Clifford D. Starkey A. Keim PDI-2 Reading Accession No.: ML020980289 OFFICE PDI-2/PM NAME DStarkey DATE 4/8/02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTS FOR ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS With reference to the submittal dated July 27, 2001, please provide the following information regarding Relief Request IR-12, Revision 0 (Category F-A, Item No. F1.40 portion of the relief request)

1. Please provide a representative drawing of the pressurizer/pressurizer lugs and the associated support(s).
2. Please Identify the associated supports (component identification), identify type of support and number of supports.
3. The VT-3 examination of the supports is to identify conditions such as clearances, settings, physical displacements, loose or missing parts, debris, corrosion, wear, erosion, or loss of integrity. The licensee proposes to not examine these supports but provides no justification that there is reasonable assurance of structural integrity.
1. Are similar supports in a similar environment being examined?
2. What is the justification that the supports have maintained proper clearances, settings, displacements, and the overall conditions are acceptable?
4. IWA-2213(c) states that the visual examination can be done remotely to verify the structural integrity. Please address wether a remote examination was considered (insulation).

Attachment