ML102210517
| ML102210517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  (DPR-022) |
| Issue date: | 08/09/2010 |
| From: | Tam P Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Loeffler R, Neve D, Rippy L Northern States Power Co |
| Tam P | |
| References | |
| TAC ME3937 | |
| Download: ML102210517 (2) | |
Text
Accession No. ML102210157 From:
Tam, Peter Sent:
Monday, August 09, 2010 2:36 PM To:
Rippy, L. Randal; 'Loeffler, Richard A.'; 'Neve, Douglas A.'
Cc:
Widrevitz, Dan; Mitchell, Matthew
Subject:
Monticello - Revised draft RAI re. Relief Request 19 dated 5/6/10 (TAC ME3937)
Randy:
By letter dated May 6, 2010, Northern States Power Company - Minnesota (NSPM) requested relief from certain examination requirements imposed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP).
Specifically, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), NSPM determined that the examination requirements of 100 percent volumetric examination coverage of all Class 1 reactor pressure vessel nozzle-to-vessel welds were impractical for the following welds: N-2A NV, N-3C NV, N-4B NV, N-6B NV, N-7 NV, N-8B NV, and N-10 NV for the Fourth 10-Year Interval ISI Program.
The percent volumetric coverage of the examination of these welds also fell below the 90 percent criteria of ASME Code Case N-460, Alternative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and Class 2 Welds,Section XI, Division 1.
On 7/27/10 I transmitted a draft RAI to you, consisting of two questions (Accession No. ML102080492). The NRC staff held a conference call with you today, during which participants agreed to drop Question 2. Accordingly, only Question 1 is left, and is reproduced below.
- 1. A number of the welds for which relief was requested are not unique in the Monticello plant (i.e., relief was requested for a subset of multiple, similar welds). Please indicate how many additional welds of the same type (recirculation inlet nozzle, feedwater inlet, etc.) exist and have been inspected during this or the prior interval. For those similar welds that have been inspected during this or the prior interval, please provide the percentage of the required weld volume that was inspected, whether any indications were identified, and how those indications were dispositioned.
This e-mail serves as a record that participants agreed to drop Question 2 from my 7/27/10 e-mail. If you desire that the NRC staff formally issue the above single question to you in a signed letter, please let me know.
While we did not agree during the conference call on a date for you to respond to the question, let me propose that you aim for 60 days or less from today.
Peter S. Tam Senior Project Manager (for D. C. Cook and Monticello)
Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Tel. 301-415-1451
E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (0A64B42AAA8FD4418CE1EB5240A6FED11BC486E46E)
Subject:
Monticello - Revised draft RAI re. Relief Request 19 dated 5/6/10 (TAC ME3937)
Sent Date: 8/9/2010 2:35:42 PM Received Date: 8/9/2010 2:35:00 PM From: Tam, Peter Created By: Peter.Tam@nrc.gov Recipients:
L.Rippy@xenuclear.com (Rippy, L. Randal)
Tracking Status: None Richard.Loeffler@xenuclear.com ('Loeffler, Richard A.')
Tracking Status: None Douglas.Neve@xenuclear.com ('Neve, Douglas A.')
Tracking Status: None Dan.Widrevitz@nrc.gov (Widrevitz, Dan)
Tracking Status: None Matthew.Mitchell@nrc.gov (Mitchell, Matthew)
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 13945 8/9/2010 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: