NL-07-068, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative

From kanterella
(Redirected from ML071620216)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative
ML071620216
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/04/2007
From: Jones T
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-07-068, TAC MD4699
Download: ML071620216 (5)


Text

Enterpy Nuclear Northeast

---En terg Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 T.R. Jones Licensing Manager Tel (914) 734 6670 June 4, 2007 Re: Indian Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-247 NL-07-068 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop O-P1-17 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No. MD4699)

REFERENCES:

1. Entergy Letter dated February 28, 2007, P.W. Conroy to Document Control Desk, "4th Ten-Year Interval Inservice Inspection and Containment Inservice Inspection Program Plan at Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2)"
2. NRC letter dated May 10, 2007, J.P. Boska to M.R. Kansler, "Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No. MD4699)"

Dear Sir or Madam:

By letter dated February 28, 2007 (Reference 1) Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted the 4'. Ten-Year Interval Inservice Inspection and Containment Inservice Inspection Program Plan for the period March 1, 2007 through April 3, 2016 for IP2. Appendix B of the enclosure contained seven (7) relief requests. The NRC staff requested additional information by letter dated May 10, 2007 (Reference 2) in order to complete its review of Relief Request RR-04. The purpose of this letter is to provide the responses to the questions transmitted in Reference 2.

Responses to questions 1 through 2 are provided in Attachment 1 to this letter.

NL-07-068 Docket 50-247 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. T.R. Jones, Manager, Licensing at (914) 734-6670.

Sincerely, T. .Jones Licensing Manager Indian Point Energy Center Attachments:

1. Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No. MD4699) cc: Mr. John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, NRC NRR DORL Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I NRC Resident Inspector's Office, Indian Point 2 Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Dept. of Public Service

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-07-068 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No. MD4699)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-247

NL-07-068 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No. MD4699)

Responses to the questions contained in the May 10, 2007 Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request RR-04, Use of Performance Demonstration Initiative (TAC No.

MD4699) are as follows:

1. Request RR-04, Item 6 (page 5 of 19) does not have a technical basis. Provide the technical basis supporting the use of the proposed alternative to the first sentence in the ASME Code,Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 10, Paragraph 2.0.

Response

Technical Basis - The current Code requires that the inside surface be concealed from the candidate. This makes qualifications conducted from the inside of the pipe (e.g.,

PWR nozzle to safe end welds) impractical. The proposed alternative differentiates between ID and OD scanning surfaces, requires that they be conducted separately, and requires that flaws be concealed from the candidate. This is consistent with the recent revision to Supplement 2.

2. Request RR-04, Item 11 (page 6 of 19), illustrates Table VIII-$2-1 with the original and proposed changes. The proposed changes are not clearly identifiable in this table subsequently renamed Table VIII-S10-1.

(a) Clarify the minimum number of units in the detection and false call test acceptance criteria that will be used in the proposed Table VIII-S10-1.

(b) For each flawed grading unit in Table VIII-S10-1, identify the number of unflawed grading units and the maximum of false calls that will be used.

Response

The proposed alternative modifies the acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S2-1 [with a new Table VIII-S10-1] as follows:

NL-07-068 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 TABLE VuI-S -1 PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATON DETECTION TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Detection Test False Call Test Acceptance Critera Acceptance Criteria No.*f No. of Maximum Flawed Minimum Unflawed Number Grading Detection Grading of False Units Criteria Units Calls 3 .. .. 0.: 0 6 1 i2 1 Q *A 10 8 20- 15 3ý- 2 11 9 2f-17 3--3 12 9 24--18 3--3 13 10 26- 20 4---3 14 10 2s--21 5-- 3 15 11 30-23 5--3 16 12 -- 24 17 12 34" 26 6--4 18 13 27 7-- 4 19 13 3e- 29 7--4 20 14 4-- 30 8-5