ML021410517

E-mail Requesting Information in Order to Respond to Letter from Member of the Public Regarding NMP2 Weld KC-32, UT Inspection

ML021410517
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/21/2002
From:	Tam P NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Leonard S Nine Mile Point
Tam P, NRR/DLPM, 415-1451
References
TAC MA7450
Download: ML021410517 (2)

Text

From: Peter Tam To: internet:Steve.Leonard@nmp.cn.com; internet:wolniakd@nimo.com Date: 5/21/02 2:45PM

Subject:

Your help in responding to a letter from a member of the public Steve:

The following describes our information need to respond to a letter from a member of the public. It is regarding NMP2 weld KC-32, UT inspection. Our reviewers, who have the delightful task of preparing the response, proposed May 29 or 30 for a telecon. The following questions do not state a formal NRC staff position, and do not formally request information.

(1) The results of UT inspection performed in the 2001 refueling outage on weld KC-32 -- How do results compare with those of previous inspections?

(2) UT equipment and procedures used in the inspection of weld KC-32 in the 2001 refueling outage. Were these different from those used in previous inspections? What impact do these differences have on flaw sizes?

(3) Information to the following items pertaining to the UT inspections performed on weld K-32 after implementation of MSIP.

a. UT measurement uncertainties associated with the reported flaw length and depth during each post-MSIP inspection.

b. The weight of shielding lead that were placed on the HPCS piping.

c. Clarify whether the spring hanger for pipe support near weld KC-32 was pinned during each UT inspection after application of MSIP. The potential impact to the results of UT inspection if the spring hanger is not pinned.

d. An estimate of upper bound compressive stresses on the flaw in weld KC-32 resulting from the weight of shielding lead with unpinned spring hanger.

4. The design basis fatigue usage factor limit for the HPCS system. In addition, the information pertaining to the thermal stratification stress, if any, of the HPCS piping adjoining the RPV nozzle. How was this thermal stratification stress considered in the crack evaluation?

Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e-mail: pst@nrc.gov Tel.: 301-415-1451 CC: William Koo; Yueh-Li Li

Mail Envelope Properties (3CEA95AC.501 : 10 : 20510)

Subject:

Your help in responding to a letter from a member of the public Creation Date: 5/21/02 2:45PM From: Peter Tam Created By: PST@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time nimo.com Transferred 05/21/02 02:45PM wolniakd (internet:wolniakd@nimo.com)

Steve Transferred 05/21/02 02:45PM Leonard (internet:Steve.Leonard@nmp.cn.co nrc.gov owf2_po.OWFN_DO Delivered 05/21/02 02:45PM WHK CC (William Koo) Opened 05/21/02 02:45PM YCL CC (Yueh-Li Li) Opened 05/21/02 02:45PM Post Office Delivered Route nimo.com INTernet Steve internet:nmp.cn.com owf2_po.OWFN_DO 05/21/02 02:45PM nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3319 05/21/02 02:45PM Options Auto Delete: No Expiration Date: None Notify Recipients: Yes Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard To Be Delivered: Immediate Status Tracking: Delivered & Opened