ML17055A928

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Insp Program for Pressure Boundary Welds.Request Given to Util on 851120.Relief Requests for Preservice Insp Program Expected to Be Submitted by 851213 & Balance of Program by 851220

ML17055A928
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/13/1985
From:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hooten B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8512200420
Download: ML17055A928 (10)

Text

= ~ ~S Rangy (4

P

~4 0

e

~i n

~f O

LiVl f

Cy Cp

+W*k+

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 December 13, 1985 Docket No. 50-410 Mr. B.

G.

Hooten Executive Director of Nuclear Operations Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202

Subject:

Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 - Preservice Inspection Program The NRC staff has reviewed the Preservice Inspection Program (PSI) for Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 (NMP-2) submitted through October 15, 1985.

The enclosed request for additional information identifies the information that is necessary to com-plete the review of the inspection program for the pressure boundary welds.

The enclosed request for information was given to Mr.

Don Hill of your staff on November 20, 1985.

On the basis of discussions with your staff it is expected that relief requests for the PSI program will be submitted December 13, 1985, and the balance of the PSI program will be submitted December 20, 1985.

Any questions concerning the enclosed request for additional information should be directed to the Licensing Project Manager, Mary Haughey (301) 492-7897.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten 'respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated El inor G.

Ad sa, Director Project Directorate No.

3 Division of BWR Licensing cc:

See next page P(wK%$ 'I '

C<l pp 7 8512200420 85i218 PDR ADOCK 05000410 8

PDR

0 1

~

Mr. B. G. Hooten Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 CC:

Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr.,

Esq.

Conner 5 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20006 Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus

Syracuse, New York 12223 Ezra I: Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station P. 0.

Box 99

Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. John W. Keib, Esq.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 Mr. James Linville U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Norman Rademacher, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Paul D. Eddy New York State Public Service Commission Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station-Unit II Post Office Box 63

Lycoming, New York 13093 Don Hill Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Suite 550 4520 East West HighWay

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 DOCKET NUMBER 50-410 Review of Preservice Ins ection PSI Pro ram and Re uest for Additional n ormatson 1.

Sco e/Status of Review Inservice inspection programs are based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g),

as detailed in ASME Code Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components."

Inservice Inspection (ISI) includes a preservice baseline inspection prior to the initial plant startup.

The staff has reviewed the available information in the Nine Mile Point 2 FSAR through Amendment 21 dated October 1985, Regional Inspection Report No. 50-410/85-23 dated August 29,

1985, and the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Preservice Inspection Program and Addenda submitted August 1984, September

1984, December 1984, July 1985, and October 1985.

The PSI Program was revised in its entirety with the October 1985 submittal, therefore, the staff review with respect to the systems and components receiving PSI examination was evaluated using this submittal.

This document also contains several requests for relief from ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Applicant has determined to be not practical and includes technical justifications and supporting information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).

The October 15, 1985 submittal of the updated Volume 1 of the Nine Mile Point 2 PSI Program states that the second and third parts will be submitted November 30, 1985 and December 20, 1985, respectively.

I

~

"2-II.

Staff Evaluation The staff has concluded that the following information and/or clari-fication is required in order to complete the review of the preservice inspection program and provide a supplemental input to Sections 5.2.4.,

and 6.6 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER):

A.

The PSI Program, Section 7, Page 7-2, states that "The response to NRC question F250. 1 discusses the degree of compliance with Regulatory Guide 1. 150.

In addition, the response discusses how the RPV automated procedures for Unit 2 are qualified to assure finding service-induced flaws on the RPV I.D. surfaces."

The response to F250.1 submitted as Amendment 9 to the FSAR (March 1984) only states that "The PSI program plan was submitted under separate cover in March 1984."

Identify the document con-taining the above information regarding Regulatory Guide 1.150.

B.

In the revised PSI Program, the Applicant committed to perform a 7.5X volumetric examination of Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal, Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Heat Removal systems which are excluded by ASME Section XI from preservice volumetric examination.

The staff review of the PSI Program shows an acceptable augmented sample in all applicable systems except the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (ICS) system which contains 38-12 inch, 3-20 inch, 6-8 inch piping welds (47 welds total) which should be considered for inclusion in the 7.5X augmented volumetric sampling program.

C.

Review of relief request RR-IWC-2 in Section 6 of the PSI Program shows some possible discrepancies with the isometric drawings in Section 8.

RR-IWC-2 requests relief for Class 2, Examination Category C-F, welds due to inaccessibility of the welds. submerged in the suppression pool.

0 P

I

-3" Confirm that the following welds located in the suppression pool area are submerged as stated in the relief request and that these welds cannot be examined during the PSI:

25-05-CSH-FW014 25-19-CSK-FM011 26-OI-CS L-FM028 57-08-ICS-FM007 57 ICS-FM016 66-08-RHS-FW011 66-13-RHS-FW025 66-22-RHS-FW023 66-23-RHS-FM020 66-28-RHS-FW007 25-05-CSH-FM012 25-19"CSH-SW013 26-01-CSL-FM026 57-08-ICS-FM015 66-08-RHS-FM003 66"08-RHS-SW018 66-13-RHS"FM023 66"22-RHS-FM021 66"23-RHS-FM019 66"28-RHS-SM006 Meld 66-22-RHS-SW014 listed in RR-IWC-2 does not appear to be located in the suppression pool area and, therefore, should not be included in this relief request.

Confirm that weld 66-13-RHS-FM025 is a Z5A/Pipe weld. If this is the case, the first downstream Pipe/Elbow weld is not included in the weld list or on the isometric drawings.

The same would be true for the downstream elbow welds following Melds 66-17-RHS-FM010 and 66-22-RHS-FW023.

D.

Describe the contents of the remaining parts of the PSI Program and indicate if all the requests for relief have been submitted in Section 6 of the updated Volume 1 or whether additional requests for relief are anticipated.

t

~

~

I.