NL-03-189, Request for Approval for Alternative to Appendix Viii, Supplement 4 Requirements for Reactor Vessel Pressure Retaining Weld Inspection

Request for Approval for Alternative to Appendix Viii, Supplement 4 Requirements for Reactor Vessel Pressure Retaining Weld Inspection

ML040020317
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/30/2003
From:	Dacimo F Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-03-189, TAC MB1608
Download: ML040020317 (6)

Text

~Entergy Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 295 Broadway, Suite 1 RO. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel 914 734 5340 Fax 914 734 5718 Fred Dacimo Vice President, Operations December 34, 2003 NL-03-1 89 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop O-P1 -17 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units No. 2 and No. 3 Docket No. 50-247, and 50-286 Alternative to Appendix Vil, Supplement 4 requirements for Reactor Vessel Pressure Retaining Weld Inspection

References:

1. US NRC letter, from Anthony J. Mendiola to Howard Bergendahl, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 - Inservice Inspection Relief Request No. RR-A23 for the Second 10-Year Inspection Interval (TAC NO. MB1608)", dated February 13, 2002.

Dear Sir Pursuant to 1 OCFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) hereby requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve the use of an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Xl requirements regarding the inspection of Class 1, Examination Category B-A, pressure retaining welds in reactor vessel.

Enclosed are two (2) similar requests for relief (RRs) to use the proposed alternatives for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (P2, Enclosure 1) and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (P3, Enclosure 2). The ASME Code, Section Xl, 1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda, Appendix Vill, Supplement 4, requires that performance demonstration results satisfy the statistical parameters of Paragraph 3.2(c). The statistical parameters of Paragraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VII are inconsistent with the PDI program criteria.

Relief is requested to use the root mean square (RMS) value of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1),

which modifies the depth sizing criteria of ASME Code, Section Xl, 1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda, Appendix Vil, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(a), in lieu of Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII. Pursuant to IOCFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), the proposed alternative maintains an acceptable level of quality and safety.

ficaY

These requests for relief for P2 and P3 are for their 3r ISI Interval, and the applicable code of record is the 1989 Edition, No Addenda of the ASME Section Xi Code.

A similar request for relief was granted to Davis-Besse, Unit 1 (Reference 1).

Entergy requests approval of the P2 relief request (Enclosure 1) by June 2004 to support its Fall 2004 refueling outage. Since these RRs are practically identical, Entergy requests that the P3 relief request (Enclosure 2) be approved at the same time.

There are no new commitments made in this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Charlene Faison at 914-272-3378.

Very truly yours, 4F

, ed R. Dacimo Vice President, Operations Indian Point Energy Center List of

Enclosures:

1. Indian Point Generating Station Unit No. 2, RR-70

2.

Indian Point Generating Station Unit No. 3, RR 3-39 cc:

Mr. Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. Patrick D. Milano, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8-C2 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Resident Inspectors Office Indian Point Unit 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 Buchanan, NY 10511-0337 Senior Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point Unit 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 38 Buchanan, NY 10511-0038 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Mr. Peter R. Smith, Acting President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203-6399 2

NL-03-189 Enclosure I INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 THIRD TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RELIEF REQUEST RR-70 Proposed Alternative In Accordance with 1 OCFR50.55a(a)(3)(i)

-Alternative Provides Acceptable Level of Quality and Safety-

1.

ASME Code Component(s) Affected Component Numbers:

ASME Section Xi Class 1 Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel Examination Category:

B-A Item Number1 B1.10 Circumferential and Longitudinal Shell Welds B1.20 Head Welds

2.

Applicable Code Edition and Addenda

The Code of Record for the third Inservice Inspection Interval is ASME Section XI Code, 1989 Edition, No Addenda.

3.

Applicable Code Requirements ASME Code, Section Xl, Appendix Vil, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(c), states that the UT performance demonstration results must be plotted on a two-dimensional plot with the measured depth plotted along the ordinate axis and the true depth plotted along the abscissa axis. For qualification, the plot must satisfy the following statistical parameters: (1) slope of the linear regression line is not less than 0.7, (2) the mean deviation of flaw depth is less than 0.25 inches, and (3) correlation coefficient is not less than 0.70.

4.

Reason for Request

The statistical parameters of Paragraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VI are inconsistent with the PDI program criteria.

5.

Proposed Alternative Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), relief is requested to use the root mean square (RMS) value of 1 OCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), which modifies the depth sizing criteria of ASME Code, Section Xl, 1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda, Appendix Vill, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(a), in lieu of Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix Vil.

1

NL-03-189 Enclosure I Basis for Use ASME Code, Section Xl, Appendix Vill, supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(c) imposes three statistical parameters for depth sizing. The first parameter, 3.2(c)(1), pertains to the scope of a linear regression line. The linear regression line is the difference between actual versus true value plotted along a through-wall thickness. For Supplement 4 performance demonstrations, a linear regression line of the data is not applicable because the performance demonstrations are performed on test specimens with flaws located in the 15 percent through-wall. The differences between the actual versus true value produce a tight grouping of results, which resemble a shotgun pattern. The slope of a regression line from such data is extremely sensitive to small variations, thus making the parameter of 3.2(c)(2), an inappropriate criterion. The second parameter, 3.2(c)(2), pertains to the mean deviation of flaw depth. The value used in the Code is too lax with respect to evaluating flaw depths within the inner 15 percent of wall thickness.

Therefore, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) proposes to use the more appropriate criterion of 0.15 inch RMS of 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), which modifies Subparagraph 3.2(a),

as the acceptance criterion. The third parameter, 3.2(c)(3), pertains to a correction coefficient.

The value of the correction coefficient in Subparagraph 3.2(c)(3) is inappropriate for this application since it is based on the linear regression from Subparagraph 3.2(c)(1).

Entergy believes the proposed alternative to use the RMS value of 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1),

which modifies the criterion of ASME Code, Appendix Vil, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(a), in lieu of Subparagraph 3.2(c), will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

6.

Duration of Proposed Alternative It is proposed to use the alternative for the remainder of the Third Inservice Inspection Interval for IP2.

7.

Precedents A similar request for relief was granted to Davis-Besse, Unit 1 (Docket No. 50-346, TAC NO.

MB1608, dated February 13, 2002).

8.

Attachment None 2

NL-03-189 INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 3 THIRD TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RELIEF REQUEST RR 3-39 Proposed Alternative In Accordance with 1 OCFR50.55a(a)(3)(i)

--Alternative Provides Acceptable Level of Quality and Safety-

1.

ASME Code Comnonent(s) Affected Component Numbers:

ASME Section Xi Class 1 Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel Examination Category:

B-A Item Number:

B1.10 Circumferential and Longitudinal Shell Welds B1.20 Head Welds

2.

ADDlicable Code Edition and Addenda The Code of Record for the third Inservice Inspection Interval is ASME Section Xl Code, 1989 Edition, No Addenda.

3.

Applicable Code Requirements ASME Code,Section XI, Appendix Vil, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(c), states that the UT performance demonstration results must be plotted on a two-dimensional plot with the measured depth plotted along the ordinate axis and the true depth plotted along the abscissa axis. For qualification, the plot must satisfy the following statistical parameters: (1) slope of the linear regression line is not less than 0.7, (2) the mean deviation of flaw depth is less than 0.25 inches, and (3) correlation coefficient is not less than 0.70.

4.

Reason for Reauest The statistical parameters of Paragraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix Vil are inconsistent with the PDI program criteria.

5.

Proposed Alternative Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), relief is requested to use the root mean square (RMS) value of 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), which modifies the depth sizing criteria of ASME Code, Section Xi, 1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda, Appendix Vil, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(a), in lieu of Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix Vil.

I

NL-03-1 89 Basis for Use ASME Code, Section Xi, Appendix Vil, supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(c) imposes three statistical parameters for depth sizing. The first parameter, 3.2(c)(1), pertains to the scope of a linear regression line. The linear regression line is the difference between actual versus true value plotted along a through-wall thickness. For Supplement 4 performance demonstrations, a linear regression line of the data is not applicable because the performance demonstrations are performed on test specimens with flaws located in the 15 percent through-wall. The differences between the actual versus true value produce a tight grouping of results, which resemble a shotgun pattern. The slope of a regression line from such data is extremely sensitive to small variations, thus making the parameter of 3.2(c)(2), an inappropriate criterion. The second parameter, 3.2(c)(2), pertains to the mean deviation of flaw depth. The value used in the Code is too lax with respect to evaluating flaw depths within the inner 15 percent of wall thickness.

Therefore, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) proposes to use the more appropriate criterion of 0.15 inch RMS of 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), which modifies Subparagraph 3.2(a),

as the acceptance criterion. The third parameter, 3.2(c)(3), pertains to a correction coefficient.

The value of the correction coefficient in Subparagraph 3.2(c)(3) is inappropriate for this application since t is based on the linear regression from Subparagraph 3.2(c)(1).

Entergy believes the proposed alternative to use the RMS value of 10CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1),

which modifies the criterion of ASME Code, Appendix Vill, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(a), in lieu of Subparagraph 3.2(c), will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

6.

Duration of Proposed Alternative It is proposed to use the alternative for the remainder of the Third Inservice Inspection Interval for IP3.

7.

Precedents A similar request for relief was granted to Davis-Besse, Unit 1 (Docket No. 50-346, TAC NO.

MB1608).

8.

Attachment None 2