ML103010441

Email, Boska (NRC) to Prussman (Entergy), ME4234 Relief Request, NRC Request for Additional Information

ML103010441
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/28/2010
From:	Boska J Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Prussman S Entergy Nuclear Operations
Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901
References
TAC ME4234, TAC ME4235
Download: ML103010441 (3)

Text

From:

Boska, John Sent:

Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:25 PM To:

'Prussman, Stephen G'

Subject:

NRC request for Additional Information on Indian Point 3 Relief Requests RR-3-49 and RR-3-50, ME4234, ME4235 By letter dated July 5, 2010, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101950041, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 2 reliefs from the requirements of Section 50.55a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the inability to achieve 100% inspection coverage of certain welds during the third ten-year inspection interval at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3), which ended on July 20, 2009.

The NRC staff is reviewing the submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The questions are found below. On November 28, 2010, the Entergy staff indicated that a response to the request for additional information would be provided within 45 days of the date of this email. This email will be publicly available in ADAMS as a record of this request.

Relief Request 3-49 For Examination Category R-A, Item Number AUGR, please address the following questions:

1. In Code Case N-578, the item numbers for RI-ISI are R1.10 through R1.18. Each of these item numbers correspond to elements that are subject to a particular type of degradation.

From the item number/type of degradation, you can then use N-578, Table 1 to identify the examination requirements, volumes, methods, etc. As such, please explain your use of Item Number AUGR and identify an Item Number and/or damage mechanism for each component that reflects the guidance provided in CC N-578, Table 1.

2. Why were these items selected for Risk-Informed ISI, was there a review conducted as part of the selection process to identify limitations in coverage as a result of geometry or materials of construction? Were there other choices that could have been made to either completely replace these selections with others of same degradation mechanism and consequence of failure or to supplement examinations with exams of additional items of the same degradation mechanism and consequence of failure?

3. What system(s) are each of these welds located in?

4. What Code edition was used for the Appendix VIII examinations?

5. Fully clarify, in writing, the wave modality, insonification angles, coverage obtained for each beam direction for all ultrasonic (UT) examinations, and coverage calculations.

For Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.22 Welds, please address the following questions:

1. Describe the inspection history for these welds including the inspection procedures used and the percent coverage obtained. Compare the previously-used inspection procedures to those used in the most recent inspection.

2. Were there any recordable indications in the past inspections and where were the indications located?

3. Describe the disposition of any recordable indications.

Relief Request 3-50 For Examination Category C-F-1, Item Numbers C5.11 and C5.21, please address the following questions:

1. What Code edition was used for the Appendix VIII examinations?

2. Fully clarify, in writing, the wave modality, insonification angles, coverage obtained for each beam direction for all ultrasonic (UT) examinations, and coverage calculations.

For Examination Category C-A, Item Numbers C1.10 and C1.20 Welds, please address the following questions:

1. Were the welds stress relieved prior to being placed into service?

2. Describe the inspection history for each weld including the inspection procedures used and the percent coverage obtained. Compare the previously-used inspection procedures to those used in the most recent inspection.

3. Were there any recordable indications in the past inspections?

4. Describe the disposition of any recordable indications.

John Boska Indian Point Project Manager, NRR/DORL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2901 email: john.boska@nrc.gov E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties ()

Subject:

NRC request for Additional Information on Indian Point 3 Relief Requests RR-3-49 and RR-3-50, ME4234, ME4235 Sent Date: 10/28/2010 3:00:07 PM Received Date: 10/28/2010 3:25:00 PM From: Boska, John Created By: John.Boska@nrc.gov Recipients:

SPrussm@entergy.com ('Prussman, Stephen G')

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 17321 10/28/2010

Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: