ML050830482
| ML050830482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/2004 |
| From: | Raghavan L NRC/NRR/DLPM |
| To: | Chernoff H NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML050830482 (3) | |
Text
nrmir (flternott - my revised version ot your gratt a
1 Page 1 3 4 ".
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lakshminaras Raghavan x
Jy e Chemoff, Harold
/
Thu, May 20, 2004 9:50 AM my revised version of your draft
/
C kiorrrdon In ffi record was de& d In accordance wkh fte Freedom of Informamon Act exemprns hi FO~gSoo-o at-(:-' 2
trold Chernoff - Docl.wrpd P~ati I fl irold Chemoti - Dod.wpd I-'an 1 A
--a-Point Beach Unit 1 - Reactor Vessel Head Inspection - Status Update The licensee had requested order relaxations for 1) 17 nozzles that could not be examined one inch below the toe of the J-groove weld on the OD surface; and 2) nozzles 32 and 33 which received less than 100% UT coverage. The licensee also requested code relief for repair of nozzle 26.
Nozzle 32, the licensee has successfully completed examinations by manual UT and no order relaxation is required. Based on discussions with the staff: On 5/19/04, the licensee has elected to remove the thermal sleeve to perform examination of the nozzle to the requirements of the Order.
Background Information Requested Order Relaxatlons During the current Unit 1 refueling outage the licensee requested relaxation of the head Inspection order In two areas: 1) 17 nozzles that could not be examined one Inch below the toe of the ]-groove weld on the OD surface; and 2) nozzles 32 and 33 which received less than 100% UT coverage.
- 1) Relaxation of one Inch below j-groove weld requirement The licensee stated the request for relaxation resulted from physical limitations of the UT tooling being used. The licensee's submittals have not yet provided all Information requested by staff to complete the review of this relaxation request. The required Injormation.Was Identified i a series of phone calls the week of 5/i0/04. The licensee's understanding of the requested Information was confirmed on a 5/15/04 calr. However, the licensee's subsequent 5/15/04 submittal did not contain all the requested Information.
- 2) Nozzles 32 and 33 which received less than 100% UT coverage The licensee stated that as a result of weld distortion In these nozzles less than i 00% UT coverage was achieved. During the 2002 Inspection, the licensee removed the thermial sleeves from these nozzles and achieved 100% coverage and replace the thermal sleeves.E r..
COh 7
5-Ix _
irold Chernoff - Doc1.wDd Pane 9 11 CRDM Repair Relief Request During UT examination of nozzle 26 a large reflector was identified at the weld root on the downhill side of the nozzle (180 degrees). This reflector was initially called crack like, but re-characterized as a fabrication related defect after additional review. The licensee chose to investigate by performing a series of dye-penetrant (PT) examinations of the J-groove weld.
These examinations revealed surface defects at - 90 degrees and 270 degrees. The licensee unsuccessfully attempted to remove the indications through grinding. Subsequently, the licensee chose to repair nozzle 26 and submitted a relief request to address the repair on 5/13/04. In a series of phone calls the week of 5/10/04 staff identified areas of technical concern with the proposed technical justification for the repair. The most significant technical concern was that the proposed repair of nozzle 26 resulted in a unique configuration that had not occurred before at other plants; because' of the thinner RPV head on 2-loop Westinghouse plants, repairs of "high angled" penetrations (those located outermost radially on the head) that are repaired using the Framatome pressure boundary relocation technique result In a portion of the new pressure boundary weld overlapping onto the existing J-groove weld. These concerns were not addressed in the 5/13/04 submittal. Additional calls, were conducted to ensure the licensee understood the'areas of technical concern. The licensee's understanding of the remaining reque.ted information was confirmed on a 5/15/04 call. The licensee's subsequent 5/15/04 did not contain all the'requested Information. The licensee has Indicated that the remaining information should be submitted soon.
Harold Chernoff, Project Manager - Point Beach Project Directorate ll-1 Division of Ucensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office: (301) 415-4018 Fax: (301) 415-1222