ML103560832

Lr Hearing - Draft RAIs Part 2

ML103560832
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/22/2010
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML103560832 (5)

Text

1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:

Green, Kimberly Sent:

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:19 PM To:

STROUD, MICHAEL D Cc:

IPRenewal NPEmails; Yee, On; Fu, Bart; Lehman, Bryce; Sheikh, Abdul

Subject:

Draft RAIs Part 2 Attachments:

Draft RAIs on GALL Rev.2 Part 2.doc

Mike, Attached are the remainder of the draft RAIs. Please let me know when Entergy will be ready for a phone call.

The purpose of the call will be to obtain any clarification on the draft RAIs.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

KimberlyGreen SafetyPM (301)4151627 kimberly.green@nrc.gov

Hearing Identifier:

IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:

2137 Mail Envelope Properties (F5A4366DF596BF458646C9D433EA37D75B92B912AB)

Subject:

Draft RAIs Part 2 Sent Date:

12/22/2010 4:18:53 PM Received Date:

12/22/2010 4:18:54 PM From:

Green, Kimberly Created By:

Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov Recipients:

"IPRenewal NPEmails" <IPRenewal.NPEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Yee, On" <On.Yee@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Fu, Bart" <Bart.Fu@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Lehman, Bryce" <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Sheikh, Abdul" <Abdul.Sheikh@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "STROUD, MICHAEL D" <MSTROUD@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 384 12/22/2010 4:18:54 PM Draft RAIs on GALL Rev.2 Part 2.doc 37370 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

D-RAI 3.0.3.1.10-1

Background:

By letter dated July 26, 2010, the applicant provided clarification of LRA Section B.1.28, One Time Inspection - Small Bore Piping. The applicant stated that its Inservice Inspection (ISI)

Program includes periodic volumetric examinations on ASME Class 1 small bore socket welds.

The applicant further stated that the inspection volume is in accordance with guidelines established in MRP-146 which recommends examination of the base metal one-half inch beyond the toe of the weld. The applicant also cited recent plant-specific operating experience in which leakage was detected in a Class 1 socket weld, and referenced the related Licensee Event Report (LER#2010-004-00). The staff noted that the applicant did not provide information that supports its conclusion on the failure mechanism.

The staff noted that for IP2, the facility operating license (DPR-26) expires at midnight September 28, 2013, and for IP3, the facility operating license (DPR-64) expires at midnight December 12, 2015. The staff further noted that both IP2 and IP3 will be in their 4th ISI interval upon entering the period of extended operation.

Issue:

The staff noted that the inspections performed by its Inservice Inspection Program for ASME Class 1 small bore socket welds only include the base metal, one-half inch beyond the toe of the weld. It is not clear to the staff how an inspection of the base metal, one-half inch beyond the toe of the weld, is capable of detecting cracking in the ASME Class 1 small bore socket weld metal.

Request:

1.

Justify that the inspection volume selected for the proposed volumetric examinations of ASME Class 1 small bore socket welds, performed as part of the Inservice Inspection Program, is sufficient and capable of detecting cracking that is occurring in the ASME Class 1 small bore socket weld metal.

2.

Clarify if the inspection volume selected for the proposed volumetric examinations of ASME Class 1 small bore butt welds, performed by the One Time Inspection - Small Bore Piping Program, includes the weld metal. If it does not include the weld metal, justify that the inspection volume is sufficient and capable of detecting cracking that is occurring in the ASME Class 1 small bore butt weld metal.

3.

Based on the operating experience at Indian Point, justify that an aging management program that performs periodic volumetric inspections of the weld metal for ASME Class 1 small bore socket and butt welds is not necessary. In lieu of this justification provide an aging management program that includes periodic volumetric inspections to manage cracking in small-bore piping and the associated weld metal (socket weld metal and butt weld metal).

4.

Whether a one-time inspection program or periodic inspection program is selected, clarify the implementation schedule of the inspections for ASME Class 1 small-bore piping including the associated welds (socket welds and butt welds). If the implementation schedule is not performed prior to the period of extended operation and

during the 4th ISI internal, justify the proposed implementation schedule for the inspections of ASME Class 1 small-bore piping including the associated welds (socket welds and butt welds).

D-RAI 3.0.3.1.10-2

Background:

SRP-LR Section A.1.2.3.4 states that when sampling is used a basis should be provided for the inspection population and sample size.

The monitoring and trending program element of GALL AMP XI.M35 recommends that the volumetric inspection should be performed at a sufficient number of locations to assure an adequate sample. Furthermore, this number, or sample size, will be based on susceptibility, inspectability, dose considerations, operating experience, and limiting locations of the total population of ASME Code Class 1 small bore piping locations.

Issue:

The staff noted that the applicant did not provide its basis for the sample size that it selected.

Specifically, the weld populations and the sample size were not provided to the staff, therefore it is not clear to the staff what percentage of ASME Code Class 1 welds, both full penetration welds and socket welds, will be inspected. It is also not clear to the staff if a sufficient number of locations will be selected to ensure an adequate sample.

Request:

Provide the total populations of Class 1 butt welds and socket welds at Indian Point for each unit. Justify that the number of samples, for both butt welds and socket welds, is sufficient to ensure that an adequate sample is selected for inspections to be performed.

D-RAI 3.0.3.2.10-1

=

Background===

NRC staff has determined that masonry walls that are within the scope of license renewal should be visually examined at least every five years, with provisions for more frequent inspections in areas where significant loss of material or cracking is observed.

Issue The LRA did not discuss the inspection interval for in scope masonry walls.

Request Provide the inspection interval for in-scope masonry walls. If the interval exceeds five years, clearly explain why and how the interval will ensure that there is no loss of intended function between inspections.

D-RAI 3.0.3.2.15-1

=

Background===

NRC staff has determined that adequate acceptance criteria for the Structures Monitoring Program should include quantitative limits for characterizing degradation. Chapter 5 of ACI 349.3R provides acceptable criteria for concrete structures. If the acceptance criteria in ACI 349.3R are not used, the plant-specific criteria should be described and a technical basis for deviation from ACI 349.3R should be provided.

Issue The LRA did not clearly identify quantitative acceptance criteria for the Structures Monitoring Program inspections.

Request

1.

Provide the quantitative acceptance criteria for the Structures Monitoring Program. If the criteria deviate from those discussed in ACI 349.3R, provide technical justification for the differences.

2.

If quantitative acceptance criteria will be added to the program as an enhancement, state whether Entergy plans to conduct a baseline inspection with the quantitative acceptance criteria prior to the period of extended operation. If there are no plans to conduct a baseline inspection prior to entering the period of extended operation, explain how Entergy plans to monitor and trend data.