ML092950113
| ML092950113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/2009 |
| From: | Kalyanam N Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | Joseph E Pollock Entergy Operations |
| Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1480 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD2401 | |
| Download: ML092950113 (2) | |
Text
From:
Kalyanam, Kaly Sent:
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:25 PM To:
POLLOCK, JIM Cc:
MURILLO, ROBERT J; MASON, MICHAEL E (WF3); Wallace, Jay
Subject:
Waterford 3 Request for Alternative, W3-ISI-015 By letter dated October 19, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092940241), Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted its third 10-year inservice inspection interval Request for Alternative, W3-ISI-015, from the inspection requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Code Case N-729-1, for Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3).
We have reviewed the application and determined that additional information contained in the enclosure is needed to complete the review. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff discussed the need for additional information on October 21, 2009, with Mr. J. Pollock of your staff. Mr. Pollock agreed to provide a response in as short a time as possible, in view of the request being outage related. Also, in view of the short turn around time, this email, which will be included in the ADAMS, may please be treated as a formal RAI.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1480 or by electronic mail at kaly.kalyanam@nrc.gov.
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THIRD 10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION INTERVAL REQUESTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WF3-ISI-015 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 By letter dated October 19, 2009, Entergy Operations Inc. (Entergy, the licensee) submitted a Request for Alternative W3-1SI-01 5, Inspection of Reactor Vessel Head In-Core Instrument Nozzles during Third Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval. The staff has reviewed the submittal and determined that additional information is required for the review to proceed.
- 1. Please specify the manufacturer, heat and heat treatment of the in-core instrumentation (ICI) penetration tubes. Has this specific material shown an industry history of primary water stress corrosion cracking?
- 2. Please specify the penetration nozzle length below the lowest point of the J-groove weld toe, and the distance that can be examined on the inside diameter (ID) by eddy current examination (ECT) and ultra-sonic testing (UT) for each of the ICI nozzles.
- 3. Please specify the extent of the ECT to be performed on the penetration tube ID above the J-groove weld root and below the J-groove weld toe. If the proposed extent is not equal to the distance a specified in ASME Code Case N-729-1, please justify the change.
- 4. The first paragraph of the proposed alternative states that the UT will be performed 1 inch above the J-groove weld. The second paragraph of the proposed alternative states that the UT will be performed from the J-groove weld root to one inch below the J-groove weld root.
- a. Please justify the deviation from the 1.5 inch a dimension specified in ASME Code Case N-729-1 for penetration tubes with outside diameter (OD) greater than 4.5 inches.
- b. Please justify any deviation from the ASME Code Case N-729-1, requirement of examination a distance a below the J-groove weld toe, or to the end of the tube, whichever is less.
- c. Please justify any deviation from ASME Code Case N-729-1, requirement of examination a distance a above the J-groove weld root.
- 5. The second paragraph of the proposed alternative states the If the TOFD data is determined to have unacceptable quality from the root of the J-groove weld to 1 inch below the root of the J-groove weld, than a manually delivered ECT of the ICI penetration tube OD will be performed.
- a. Who will make the determination of the unacceptable quality?
- b. What criteria are used for the unacceptable quality?
- c. If the unacceptable quality of the TOFD data is determined, what is the extent of manually delivered ECT?
- d. If the unacceptable quality of the TOFD data above the J-groove weld toe is determined, what further examination will be performed since ECT on the OD is not possible?
- 6. Please provide a complete copy of the Westinghouse Topical Report, WCAP-15815-P, Revision 1.