ML050830483
| ML050830483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/2004 |
| From: | Chernoff H NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | Sheron B NRC/NRR/ADPT |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML050830483 (3) | |
Text
arold Chernoff - Point Beach Reactor Vessel Head Inspection Update Ivage 1 a 33 From: Jo4j Harold Chernoff To:
(Brian Sheron; Eric Leeds; Lakshminaras Raghavan; Tad Marsh; William Ruland Date:
Thu, May 20, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject:
Point Beach Reactor Vessel Head Inspection Update Attached is a summary of Point Beach Unitl, reactor vessel head inspection regulatory activities. The attached file contains a brief summary and more detailed background information.
hkc Harold Chernoff, Project Manager - Point Beach Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office: (301) 415-4018 Fax: (301) 415-1222 CC:
Carl Lyon; Darrell Roberts; Margie Kotzalas Informabon in Us record was deleted In accordance wOh the Freedom of Informa6on Ac exemphs 5 ic-$
RrOICI UnernOTI - Dom oeagn myrit, siatus 1.113ciate.WDU Hana I at arot unrnot oin oecn VR-t ST!USuocate~oo
~in 1
Point Beach Unit 1 - Reactor Vessel Head Inspection - Status Undate 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.
The licensee successfully completed additional examinations of nozzle 32 eliminating the need for order relaxation on that nozzle. On 5/19/04, after discussions with the staff regarding the technical justification for order relaxation for nozzle 33, the licensee has elected to remove the thermal sleeve to perform additional UT examination of nozzle 33 to meet the requirements of the order.
The licensee has stated that the additional information requested by the staff should be provided In the near future.. Staff Is continuing development of SEs for both the remaining order relaxations and the repair relief request.
Background Information Requested Order Relaxations 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 J-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 Information was Identiied In a series of phone calls the week of 5/10/04. The licenseb's understanding of the requested information was confirmed on a 5/15/04 call. 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.100% UT coverage was achieved. During the 2002 inspection, the licensee removed the thermal sleeves from these nozzles arid achieved 100% coverage'and replaced the thermal sleeves.
J U
r r
X ARE 1
arolcl L;heMOTT - point Deacn HVHV Status upaaie.wpa P~age z a arl Utem
,n ec
-V-l'sttsuat~p
'a~
May20, 2004 BSS 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 attemrpted to remove the Indications through grinding. Subsequently, the licensee chose to repair nobzle 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 concerm was that the proposed repair of nozzle 26 resulted in a unique configuration that had not occurred before at '6ther plants; because of the thinner RPV head on'2-loop Westinghouse plants, repairs of 'high angled' peetrations (thosa located outermost radially 'on the head) that are repaired using the Framatome pressure bou'ndary rel6catlon technique result In a
'portion if the newpressure boundary weld overlaoping onto thee 'existing J-groove weld. These cohcens were not addressed In the 5/13104 submittal. Additional calls, were 'conducted to ensure the licensee understood the areas of technical concern. The licensee's understanding 'of the remaining requested Information was confirmed on a 5/15/04 call. The licensee's subsequent 5/15/04 did not contain all the requested lnformation; The licensee has Indicated that the remaining Information should be submitted soon.
hkc Harold Chernoff, Project Manager - Point Beach ProJect*Directorate ll-i Division of Ucensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office: (301) 415-4018 Fax: (301) 415-1222 2