ML13252A177

Request for Additional Information Concerning Relief Request No. RR-III-10

ML13252A177
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	09/11/2013
From:	Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Gatlin T South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
Martin Robert, NRR/DORL 415-1493
References
RR-III-10, TAC MF1848
Download: ML13252A177 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D,C. 20555-0001 September 11, 2013 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin Vice President, Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88, Mail Code 800 Jenkinsville, SC 29065

SUBJECT:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING RELIEF REQUEST NO. RR-III-10 (TAC NO. MF1848)

Dear Mr. Gatlin:

By letter dated May 6, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ADAMS) Accession No. ML13129A178), South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, (SCE&G, the licensee) for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (VCSNS) submitted Relief Request No.

RR-III-10.

The staff has determined that additional information is necessary to complete the review of Relief Request No. RR-III-10, as stated in the Enclosure. Please provide a response within 30 days of the issuance of this letter.

Sincerely

~

Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-395

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1!

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.

RELIEF REQUEST NO. RR-III-10 DOCKET NO. 50-395 (TAC NO. MF1848)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided by South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (SCE&G, the licensee) for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (VCSNS) Relief Request No. RR-III-10 in its letter dated May 6,2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13129A178), and has determined that additional information is necessary to complete the review of Relief Request No. RR-III-10.

Based on the staff's review of Relief Request RR-III-10, please provide responses which address the following requests:

RAI1 The NRC was not able to locate a prior submittal from SCE&G requesting relief from essentially 100% inspection coverage for the VCSNS pressurizer surge nozzle. Given that the current design configuration for the VCSNS surge nozzle has been present since the original plant design, and given that VCSNS is currently in the third lSI interval, provide a copy of the previous Relief Request for inspection of the surge nozzle. If inspection relief for essentially 100%

coverage was not previously requested, explain why.

RAI2 The Wesdyne Ultrasonic Examination Reports included in Attachment 2 of the Relief Request identify that no recordable indications were present in any of the scans for the surge nozzle.

Have any indications previously been detected on the pressurize surge nozzle-to-vessel weld that were evaluated to be either relevant or non-relevant indications? If any indications were detected, discuss the inspection during which the indications were found and the disposition of the indications.

RAI3 Has a visual examination been performed on the pressurizer surge nozzle-to-vessel weld? If so, what were the results of the examination?

RAI4 Provide an inspection scan coverage map that identifies the areas of the examination volume that were missed.

Enclosure

- 2 RAIS Identify whether the pressurizer surge nozzle receives a visual (VT-2) examination in conjunction with the Class I System Leakage Test conducted during each refueling outage in accordance with ASME Section XI requirements to compliment the limited examination coverage. If so, identify the number of such examinations that took place during the third interval.

RAIS There are discrepancies between the text in the Relief Request and the data sheets provided in related to search unit angles for each scan direction as well as coverage achieved. As such, please clarify the following:

a. Attachment 2, pages 1 and 2 indicate that a 55 degree n search unit was also used in the surge nozzle examination, but this search unit was not described in the relief request. Explain why and how this search unit was used in the surge nozzle weld examination.

b. Attachment 2, page 3 indicates that there were no scan limitations for the 0° search unit.

However, the Code Coverage Achieved is shown as 75.5%. Explain this apparent discrepancy.

c. Attachment 2, page 4 indicates that the Code Coverage Achieved for the 45° search unit was 75.5%. However, Attachment 2, page 6 and the text of the relief request indicates the coverage was 51% for this search unit. Explain this apparent discrepancy. Also, why is the scan area for this search unit indicated as both parallel and perpendicular to the weld?

d. Attachment 2, page 5 indicates that the Code Coverage Achieved for the 60° search unit was 75.5%. However, Attachment 2, page 6 and the text of the relief request indicates the coverage was 51 % for this search unit. Explain this apparent discrepancy. Also, why is the scan area for this search unit indicated as both parallel and perpendicular to the weld?

ML13252A177 'via email or memo LPL2-1/PM LPL2-1/LA DSS/BC LPL2-1/BC artin SFigueroa SRosenberg RPascarelli 9/9/13 /11/13