ML030370158

License Renewal Electronic Correspondence for Hearing File Minor Word Change to UFSAR Supp Summary Description of Rv Internals Inspection

ML030370158
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire
Issue date:	12/03/2002
From:	Rani Franovich Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
To:	Gill R Duke Energy Corp
Franovich R, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1868
References
Download: ML030370158 (2)

Text

I Rani Franovich - Re: Minor Word Change to UFSAR Supp Summary Description of RVIntemals!nspection From:

Rani Franovich To:

Robert L Gill Jr Date:

12/3/02 3:13PM

Subject:

Re: Minor Word Change to UFSAR Supp Summary Description of RVIntemalslnspection Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your point, but I think my tech staff feels comfortable with the words currently in the SER.

Let me know if there is anything else I can run down for you.

Rani

>>> "Robert L Gill Jr" <rlgill@duke-energy.com> 12/03/02 03:08PM >>>

Thanks for the feedback.

It seems from your reply that an acceptable crack size is always smaller than a critical crack size. Thus it would be conservative to have a smaller acceptance critieria using "acceptable" crack size. Nevertheless, no changes will be made to the UFSAR supplement to avoid confusion with the SER.

Bob "Rani Franovich"

<RLF2@ nrc.aov>

To:

<rlqill@duke-eneray.com>

cc:

"James Medoff" <JXM@nrc.cqov>, "Stephanie Coffin" 12/03/2002 02:09

<SMC1 @nrc.qov>

PM

Subject:

Re: Minor Word Change to UFSAR Supp Summary Description of RV Intemalslnspection OK Bob, I am no materials expert, but the following is a paraphrased response from my tech staff:

Critical crack size refers to a material property that relates to the critical stress (actually critical stress intensity) for material under a given state of pressure and temperature.

An acceptable crack size would refer to the any size of a crack (detected and determined by inspection) that, when compared to the critical crack size, is less than the critical crack for the material such that it can be concluded that the crack is stable under the given state of applied stress.

Therefore critical crack size and acceptable crack size are two different things. I have been advised by my tech staff to maintain the current wording in the SER to preclude any confusion that might arise with use of "acceptable" crack size.

rcig"A

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~-

RaiFaoih-e io odCaq oUSRSp umr ecito fRltrasnpcinrageý Rani

>> "Robert L Gill Jr" <rlpill@duke-enerav.com> 12/03/02 12:24PM >>>

Rani, In reviewing the summary descritpion of the Reactor Vessel Internals Inspection contained within the UFSAR Supplement for each station, the desire to make a wording change was identified. In following text, we would like to change the word "critical" to "acceptable":

Acceptance Criteria ? The Reactor Vessel Internals Inspection includes the following acceptance criteria:

For the items comprised of plates, forgings, and welds, critical acceptable crack size will be determined by analysis and submitted for review and approval to the NRC staff prior to the inspection.

For baffle bolts, any detectable crack indication is unacceptable for a particular baffle bolt. The number of baffle bolts needed to be intact and their locations will be determined by analysis.

For items fabricated from CASS, critical acceptable crack size will be determined by analysis. Acceptance criteria for all aging effects will be developed and submitted for review and approval to the NRC staff prior to the inspection.

Please run this past the appropriate reviewer and see if the change is OK.

Thanks, Bob

[-Fa~-riivich --Re: Minor Word Change to UIFSAR Supp Summr Dsrpio~n of RV~rnternmals~n~s./e.ton