ML11164A174
| ML11164A174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML11164A174 (3) | |
Text
1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:
Kuntz, Robert Sent:
Monday, June 13, 2011 2:30 PM To:
MSTROUD@entergy.com
Subject:
Draft RAIs Attachments:
RAI-small bore3.docx
- Mike, Attached are draft RAIs. Please review and let me know if you need a telephone conference call to discuss them. The purpose of the call would be to obtain any clarification on the draft RAI.
RobertKuntz Sr.ProjectManager NRR/ADRO/DLR/RPB2 (301)4153733 robert.kuntz@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier:
IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:
2623 Mail Envelope Properties (Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov20110613142900)
Subject:
Draft RAIs Sent Date:
6/13/2011 2:29:30 PM Received Date:
6/13/2011 2:29:00 PM From:
Kuntz, Robert Created By:
Robert.Kuntz@nrc.gov Recipients:
"MSTROUD@entergy.com" <MSTROUD@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 328 6/13/2011 2:29:00 PM RAI-small bore3.docx 19860 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
DRAI 3.0.3.1.10-3
Background:
By letter dated March 28, 2011, the applicant provided its response to RAI 3.0.3.1.10-1.
Regarding its ASME Class 1 small bore socket weld inspection plan at IP2 during the extended period of operation, the applicant stated that it will perform volumetric examination of at least ten socket welds during each 10-year period [interval] of the period of extended operation in Part 1 and Part 3 of the response. However, it also stated ten socket welds in Part 4 of the response.
Also regarding its socket weld inspection plan at IP2, the applicant stated that it will perform volumetric examination of ten socket welds in 2012 in Part 1 and Part 4 of the response. However, it also stated at least ten socket welds in 2012 in Part 3 of the response.
Issue:
It is not clear to the staff whether the applicant intends to examine ten or at least ten socket welds during each 10-year interval of the period of extended operation. Based on IP2s plant specific operating experience, IP2 appears to have experienced five cases of socket weld failures. The staffs expectation is that a robust inspection program of socket welds is warranted and the inspection sampling should be sufficiently significant so that cracking, if exists, will be detected.
Request:
Justify the sampling adequacy for each 10-year period [interval] during the period of extended operation.