ML17055B931
| ML17055B931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hooten B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607030354 | |
| Download: ML17055B931 (10) | |
Text
June 23, 1986 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
Dear Mr. Hooten:
DIS TION:
c et o.
0-410 NRC PDR Local PDR BWD-3 r/f FAdensam MHaughey EHylton RBernero BTurovlin
- Attorney, OELD BArimes 1Partlow EJordan ACRS (10)
Suhject:
Request for Additional Information Concerning the Preservice Inspection Program at Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 The NRC is presently reviewing the Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 -(NMP-2) Preservice Inspection (PSI)
Program.
The enclosure to this letter identifies information needed in order for the NRC to continue review of this program.
A copy of the enclosed request for additional information was given to Mr. Don Hill of your staff on June 18, 1986.
Please provide the information requested in the enclosure within 14 working
'ays of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated
/S/
Mary F. Haughey, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No.
3 Division of RWR Licensing cc:
See next page BWD-3:
L MHaughey/hmc 6/z z/86 8b07030354 SbOb23 PDR ADOCK 050004l0 6
PDR LA. WP3:DBL EHy3 on 6p /6 D:
~D 3:DBL EA e sam 6g 86
V l
I
~ If
~ '+ Ir
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 Linvilie 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 1940&
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
'520 East West HighWay
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE NILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION " UNIT 2 DOCKET NUMBER 50-410 ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF BWR LICENSING Review of Preservice Ins ection PSI Pro ram and a
Re uest for Further Information I.
Sco e/Status of Review Inservice inspection programs are based on the general requirements. of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a, 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 Engineering Branch'f the Division of BWR Licensing is responsible for review of the ISI/PSI program for compliance to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a.
The staff has reviewed the available information in the Nine Nile Point 2
FSAR through Amendment 25 dated March 1986, Regional Inspection Report No. 50-410/85-23 dated August 29,
- 1985, and the Nine Nile 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 Program with respect to the systems and components receiving PSI examination was evaluated using this submittal.
This submittal also contained several requests for.
relief from ASME Code requirements which the. Applicant has determined to be not practical and included technical justifications and supporting information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).
In a letter dated December 5, 1985, the staff requested the additional information required in order to complete the review of the PSI program and provide supplemental input to Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
In a letter dated January 24,
- 1986, the'pplicant provided a response to the request for additional information and made a commitment to revise the inconsistencies,
'identified by the staff, with regards to the relief requests submitted in October 1985.
The Applicant revised the October 1985 relief requests and submitted ll new relief requests in a submittal dated May 9, 1986.
II.
Staff Evaluation Based on review of the above information, and the results of a telephone conference call with the Applicant on Nay 16, 1986 to Miscuss the 11 new relief requests, the staff has concluded that the following information and/or clarification is required in order to
continue the review of the preservice inspection program and provide further input to Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6 of the Nine Mile.Point 2 Safety Evaluation Report:
A.
The following duplicate weld numbers are identified by the staff in relief request RR-IWB-6:
(1)
Weld number FWB20 appears on page 4 of 5 as a Pipe-to-Safe End weld.
On page 5 of 5, the same weld number,
- FWB20, appears as a Pipe-to-Sweep-o-let weld.
(2)
Held FMB10 appears twice on page 4 of 5.
The Applicant should review RR-IWB-6 and the other relief requests for duplicate weld numbers and configuration inconsistencies and provide the staff with a revised relief request submittal.
B.
The following ten pipe-to-safe end extension welds appear in both Relief Request RR-IHB-6 and Relief Request RR-IHB-8; MELD NUMBERS 2RCS-64"00"FWA17 2RCS-64-00-FMA18 2RCS-64-00-FMA19 2RCS-64-00-FWA20 2RCS-64-00-FMA21 2RCS-64-00-FWB17 2RCS-64-00-FWB18 2RCS-64-00-FWB19 2RCS-64-00"FMB20 2RCS-64-00"FWB21 Individual welds should not appear on more than one relief request for the following reason:
In Relief Request RR-IHB-6, relief is requested from performing the Code-required ultrasonic examination from the safe end extension side of the weld due to the fitting configuration.
This would lead the staff to believe, as indicated in RR-IWB-6, that at least 50K of the Code-required volume has been examined.
Relief Request RR-IMB-8 requests relief from examining the same ten welds from the pipe side of the weld because of varying degrees of austenitic we'Id overlay.
Again this would lead the staff to believe that the Code-required volumetric examination was at least partially completed.
The combination of the two relief requests may mean that 0% of the Code-required examination was accomplished.
In order for the staff to evaluate if relief is justified for the subject welds, the Applicant should include the individual welds in one relief request and include exactly what total percentage of the Code-required volumetric examination was completed.
In addition, the Applicant should verify that similar conditions do not exist with other welds or components listed in any of the Nine Nile Point Unit 2 relief requests.
C.
For weld number 2RHS-66-57-SW005, in Relief Request RR-INC-8, the Basis for Relief states that the surface examinations of the subject weld can only be performed on a limited scope due to interference caused.by the configuration of an adjacent flange.
This relief request also states that the Code requirement for this we1d is both a 100K surface and volumetric examination.
It appears to the staff that if relief is requested for the Code-required surface examination, then relief would also be required for the Code-required volumetric examination.
Provide clarification with regards to what Code-required PSI examinations have been or can be completed.
Also, as a result of the conference call on May '6, 1986, provide written clarification with regards to what the correct weld number is for the subject weld.
III. Conclusion The Applicant should submit the above requested information and/or clarifications in or der to permit the staff review of the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 to continue.
~
~
C j