ML051050130
| ML051050130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/2004 |
| From: | Mel Holmberg NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | James Heller NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| EA-03-009, FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML051050130 (2) | |
Text
Joseph Pe~cosino a-067.need to send letter for additional informationwpd
, _ _,_,_,4_,
,,_,,, d
_,,_,.a__,
_r--_
' ~ n k
~~
y' ~d
' t-
.- ~-~
__P age l1 From:
Melvin Holmberg
> l-l-(
To:
Heller, James A
Date: 5/24/04 11:43AM
Subject:
Point Beach Concern Revised licensee request letter
- Jim, I discussed with Al Capristo and other licensee staff their response to the concerns on the Point Beach Unit 1 head exam with respect to J-groove weld cracking. They requested that we send them a new letter clarifying the wording of these concerns. I have redone our concerns in the attachment to this E-mail. Please resend our concern letter on this issue to the licensee using the attached clarifications. I used bold type to identify the areas affected by my clarifications.
- Thanks, Mel CC:
Caniano, Roy; Harold Chernoff; Hills, David; Louden, Patrick; Morris, R. Michael Details
- 1. An Individual Is concerned that the Indications [revealed by dye penetrant (PT) examination on nozzle No. 26 J-groove weld during Ui R28] were not detected by the ultrasonic (UT) exam of nozzle No. 26 that was performed to comply with NRC Order EA-03-009. Further this Individual believes that these Indications are likely caused by primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) and that other Unit 1 J-groove welds at other nozzles could contain similar PWSCC which was not detected by the UT exams.
The Individual Is concerned that because PWSCC was detected by the PT exam In nozzle 26 J-groove weld and was not detected by the UT exam, this means that the UT exam Is not capable of detecting PWSCC In the J-groove welds. Further, the Individual Is concerned that the licensee has not provided a technical Justification for not performing PT examinations at other highly stressed J-groove weld locations (outer periphery penetrations, and the mechanically straightened nozzle penetrations). The individual believes that the licensee will not pursue the PT examination of other J-groove welds in view of the potential for finding PWSCC damage.
The individual stated that UT examinations revealed an anomaly in the root of the penetration 26 J-groove weld. The anomaly was believed to be manufacturing related. The presence of the Indication lead to the performance of a surface PT examination of the penetration 26 J-groove weld. The PT examination revealed numerous crack like surface indications.
Followup grinding and re-examination revealed that the indications had depth and deemed to be not acceptable for continued operation.
In addition to the Investigation requested by the letter please provide (A) your technical basis for not conducting additional PT examinations on other penetrations; and (B) your basis for the making the determination as to whether or not the Indications (cracking) detected by PT
.,w-Qg1
- d.
,I 4Joseph F '0rosino6-O4:a 7.nee t6o send getter for additional informatio.wpi
- - -I---.---
examinations In the nozzle No. 26 J-groove weld during UR128 constitute a significant condition adverse to quality.
.