ML022200652
| ML022200652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/2002 |
| From: | Gill R Duke Energy Corp |
| To: | Rani Franovich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Franovich R, NRR/RLEP, 415-1868 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML022200652 (3) | |
Text
[........
..a..o..ich....Re:..
...d.R..g.......
g..the..intent..
..of the..
re po s to. RA B....
e..
From:
"Robert L Gill Jr" <rIgilI@duke-energy.com>
To:
"Rani Franovich" <RLF2@nrc.gov>
Date:
6/7/02 8:34AM
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Regarding the intent of the response to RAI B.27-2
- Rani, The pressurizer spray head is a non-safety component and pressure boundary and structual integrity are not intended functions. Spray is the only intended function. There is no need to determine critical crack sizes. The VT-3 examination is acceptable for managing the spray function of the spray head and the acceptance criteria for such examinations are contained in the ASME Code. Critcial crack size is not an issue with VT-3 exams. This is exactly the same inspection that we proposed and was approved by NRC on Oconee.
Bob "Rani Franovich" To:
<rlgill@duke-energy.com>
<RLF2@nrc.gov cc:
"Barry Elliot' <BJE@nrc.gov>, "James Davis" <JAD@nrc.gov>
bcc:
06/06/2002
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Regarding the intent of the 02:29 PM response to RAI B.27-2
- Bob, Can you say the same thing about the VT-3 examination you propose for the Pressurizer Spray Head Examination (RAI response to 2.3.2.7-1) so that the staff has assurance that the visual inspection will be able to detect flaws smaller than the critical crack size estimated by analysis for the spray head?
Rani
>>> "Robert L Gill Jr" <rlgill@duke-energy.com> 06/06/02 09:25AM >>>
- Rani, I have discussed with Mary. We agree that the recast sentence provided by Jim more accurately conveys our intent. The affected sentence provided in our RAI response was poorly worded and confusing. We agree to make it confirmatory. Bob "Rani To:
<rlgill@duke-energy.com>
Frenovich" S...
- AIA4*
m R i r 6F V 0viiich--Re: Fwd:-Regairding the iintent of the fikrespRons to.!27-2
[RriFrah6ch Re: Fwd:
intent of th 6t6RAl B.27 -
Page2
<RLF2@nrc.gov cc:
bcc:
Subject:
Fwd: Regarding the intent of the 06/06/2002 response to RAI B.27-2 07:52 AM Message from "James Medoff" <JXM@nrc.gov> on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:47:49 -0400 -
To: "Rani Franovich" <RLF2@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Regarding the intent of the response to RAI B.27-2 Ask Bob whether the intent of the last sentence in the second paragraph of the response to RAI B.27-2 is that 'The visual inspection method selected for the inspection of RV internal plates, forging, and welds will be sufficient to detect cracks in the components prior to any growth to a size that is greater than the critical crack size (critical crack length) for the material.
Tell him critical crack length is a material property that is calculated or determined by engineering analysis, not a flaw that exists in a material.
Inspections can detect flaws prior to reaching a size equivalent to the critical crack size, but not the critical crack size itself.
If the answer to the intent question is yes then we'll make it a confirmatory item.
Jim
ýr-inov`ic-F---
Wd.-Ikegardiiig the 6t6iit-of ffi-e iiiýo-niWio-'M 13ý27-2
J[RaMFiWran6-v i ci -' Re-: Fwd-: Re-- &d i 6 (h-e iiitiUto rteeWpons~e -to RAT 9.27-2 Page3 1
CC:
"Gregory 0 Robison" <gdrobiso@duke-energy.com>, "Mary H Hazeltine"
<mhhazelt@duke-energy.com>