ML14192A368

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Inservice Insp Program. Response Required within 45 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML14192A368
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	05/10/1982
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Jackie Jones Carolina Power & Light Co
References
NUDOCS 8205190386
Download: ML14192A368 (7)

Text

DISTRIBUTION Do t File Ap NRWR Local PDR ORB Rdg D. Eisenhut MAY 1 0 1982 OELD OI&E (1)

G. Requa Docket No. 50-261 C. Parrish G. Johnson, MTEB NSIC ACRS (10)

J. Heltemes, AEOD SAI Mr. J. A. Jones, Vice Chairman Carolina Power and Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street RECIVED Faleigh, North Carolina 27602 a

MAY 17 1982 8

Dear Mr. Jones:

aI

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55(a) INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM H. B. ROBINSON UNIT 2 A review of your recent submittal by our contractor, SAI, on the subject item reveals the need for additional information.

The additional information required is contained within the enclosure and we request a response within 45 days of the receipt of this 1qtter.

Sincerely, Steven A. 1arga Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating REactors Branch #1 Division of Licepsing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:

See next page OFFICE)

.0..R.............

B........

.1............

G.V qua pr V *ga 5//82 DATE

• 1 FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

Mr. J. A. Jones Carolina Power and Light Company cc: G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Hartsville.Memorial Library Home and Fifth Avenues Hartsville, South Carolina 29550 U. S..Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Route 5, Box 266-lA Hartsville, South Carolina 29550 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator -

Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL-INFORMATION INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM Robinson Unit No. 2 Relief Requests from the March 22, 1982 (Ref. 1) submittal, Attachment A, Table 1

1. Relief Request 1, Categories B-J, C-B, and C-F (B9.1, B9.31, C2.2, C5.2)

Certain Welds require volumetric examination over the inner 1/3 of the pipe volume and surface examination.

The licensee proposes to use a full volumetric examina tion in lieu of the partial volumetric and surface examination on some of the welds in these categories.

The following additional information is required:

a. Please identify and describe the welds for which relief is being requested.

b.

We are willing to allow substitution of full volumetric examination for the combination of surface and volumetric examination if you are willing to commit to the volumetric examina tion of the volume bounded by A-C-F-E-D-B such as in Figures IWB-2500-8 and IWC-2520-4,7.

Please concur.

2.

Relief Request 2, Use of Ultrasonic Examination Calibra tion Blocks with drilled holes instead of notches.

Relief is requested from the 77 Code (Summer 78 Adden dum) requirements for the use of ultrasonic examination calibration blocks with specified notches. Use of cali bration blocks with drilled holes in.accordance with the 74 code (Summer 75 addendum) is requested.

The following additional information is requested:

a.

Please provide additional justification for not changing to the new calibration blocks required by the later code.

b. Does this relief request apply to all calibra tion blocks?

If not, please identify in pro gram table by Section XI category number and by Section XI item number, where relief is requested.

II. Additional Questions on the March 2, 1982 Submittal Is relief required for any of the examination requirements for which.it was requested in your October 25, 1978 (Ref. 2) submittal? If not, please clarify your position.

A number of the relief requests made in Ref. 2 would appear tostill be necessary for your new program.

For example, notes 7, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 of Table 3A for piping welds would still appear to be relevant.

If any relief requests from Ref. 2 are still applicable, please notify us as soon as possible so that they may be included in our review.

The following questions arose from comparison of your latest submittal for the March 7, 1981 - March 7, 1991 interval with your previous submittal for the November 7, 1977 - March 7, 1981 period.

1.

Category B-A, Reactor Vessel; Items 81.20, Head Welds Code relief was requested in Table 3A of Ref. 2 for:

a. Lower Head Peel Segment Meridional Welds (6)

Note 1

b. Lower Head Peel Segment to Disc Circumferential Weld - Note 1

c. Closure Head Peel Segment to Disc Circumferential Weld - Note 2 due to geometrical considerations.

The following additional information is requested:

a. Is relief still required?

b. What fraction of the weld lengths are accessible to volumetric examination?

c. Identify the fraction of the length of these welds that is accessible to surface examination.

d. Will these welds be visually examined for leakage or deposits caused by leakage both during the leak testing after each refueling outage and during the hydrostatic test to be performed near the end of the 120-month interval?

2

2. Category B-D, Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds Pressurizer - Items B3.110, Nozzle-to-vessel welds B3.120, Nozzle inside radius section Steam Generators, Items B3.130, Nozzle-to-vessel welds B3.140, Nozzle inside radius section Reference 1 comments that inspection requirements are not applicable to these nozzles.. Reference 2 explained in Notes 6 and 9 of Table 3A that these are integrally cast and hence there are no welds in this category.

The following additional information is requested:

a.

Will you commit to perform visual examinations of the steam generator nozzles during system hydro static tests?

b. How successful have you been at performing examina tions of the inside nozzle radius of the pressurizer?

c. Based on this experience, to what kind of examinations will you commit?

3. Category B-D, Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds Regenerative Heat Exchanger Items B3.150, Nozzle-to-vessel welds 83.160, Nozzle inside radius sections Reference 1 states that visual and surface examinations will be made on item B3.150.

However the code requires volumetric examinations and no relief is requested.

Examinations of the nozzle inside radius section is stated to be not possible.

In Table 3A of Reference 2, relief was requested and Note 6 was referenced.

Note 6 stated thatthe pressur izer nozzles are integrally cast.

The following additional information is requested:

a. Are these nozzles integrally cast?

b. Please justify why visual and surface examinations are.being performed in lieu of the required volu metric.

c. Please justify why the nozzle inside radius sections cannot be examined.

3

4. Category B-J, Items B9.11, Circumferential Welds, Nomi nal Pipe Size 4 inches and Greater; and B9.21, Circum ferential Welds, Nominal Pipe Size Less Than 4 inches.

Reference 1 lists a number of circumferential pipe welds for which examination is limited due to geometrical reasons.

The following additional information is requested:

a.T*What extent will the full examination requirements of the code not be met?

b. Do any of these welds involve terminal ends in a pipe or branch run connected to a vessel?

If so, which ones?

C. Do any of these welds involve terminal ends or joints of pipe or branch runs connected to other components where stress levels exceed the code limits? If so, which ones?

d. Do any of the welds involve dissimilar metals?

Which ones?

e Will 25 percent of the circumferential joints in the reactor coolant system be examined?

5.

Category B-F, Item B5.20; Dissimilar Metal Weld - Safety Injection System, Line No. 12-RC-10.

A dissimilar metal weld has the comment "Limited Welded lugs on nozzle" The following additional information is requested:

a.

If code requirements cannot be met, please explain why.

b. Please provide a sketch of that portion of the weld for which volumetric and surface examinations can be performed.

6. Category B-K-1, Item B10.10, Piping, Integrally Welded Attachments A number of pipe support welds are listed with the comment "Support thickness unknown."

The following additional information is requested:

4

a.

Are these table entries meant to imply that if the base material design thickness is 5/16 inch or greater, the welds will be examined as required by the code?

7. Category C-B, Item C2.20, RHR Heat Exchanger, Nozzle to Vessel Welds Reference 1 states that nozzle-to-vessel welds 3 and 4 are not accessible yet no code relief is requested.

However in Table 3B, Note 2 of Reference 2, relief was requested. The weld was stated to be inaccessible be cause a reinforcement ring had been welded directly over the nozzle-to-vessel weld on the RHR heat exchanger. In the August 22 and 23, 1978, meeting (Ref..3),

the licen see agreed to con.sider radiography of the RHR nozzle welds. If radiography could not be performed, the licensee agreed to visual examination during hydrostatic testing.

The following additional information is requested:

a. Is relief from the code requirements still required?

b. Have radiographic examinations been tried?

If so, how successful were they?

8. Category C-F, Item 5.11, Circumferential Welds in Piping Over 1/2 inch Nominal Wall Thickness Reference 1 states that surface examinations in several welds will be limited.

The following additional information is requested:

a.

Will the code requirements be met?

If code requirements cannot be met, please explain why.

References

1.

P.W.

Howe (CP&L) to S.A. Varga (NRC),

letter with attachments March 22, 1982.

2.

E.E.

Utley (CP&L) to A. Schwencer (NRC),

letter with attachments, October 25, 1978.

3. Meeting, August 22 and 23, 1978, Raleigh, North Carolina, NRC and CP&L Staff.

April 29, 1982 5