ML17055B975
| ML17055B975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1986 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607090064 | |
| Download: ML17055B975 (8) | |
Text
~g RECIj P0 Cy
~i 0O g
++*++
,:Docket No;-50-410 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 25, 1986
'EMORANDUM FOR:.
Fites F,ROM:
Mary F. Haughey, Project Manager BWR Proiect Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing
SUBJECT:
DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GIVEN TO NIAGARA MOHAWK ON THE PRESERVICE INSPECTION On June 18, 1986, Mr. Don Hill of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) was given a copy of enclosure 1 to assist NMPC in preparing responses to j
, concerns in the area of Preservice Inspection (PSI).
By copy of this note en'closure 1 will be placed in the NRC public docket room and the local public document room.
Encl osut e:
As stated cc:
PDR LPDR Document Control
~~
wA'arv F. Haughey, Pro, ect Manager BWR Proiect Directorate No.
3 Division of RWR Licensing 8b070900b4 BbOb25 PDR ADOCK 050004l0 8
I UI lt'h II
)I Ct
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE 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'co 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 pr ior to the initia'l plant startup.
The Engineering Branch of 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 Mile Point 2
FSAR through Amendment 25 dated March 1986, 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 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 re'quired 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 Applicant 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 11 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 May 16, 1986 to discuss the 11 new relief requests, the staff has concluded that the following information and/or clarification is required in order to
I ql
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 f'ollowing duplicate weld numbers are identified by the staff in relief request RR-IHB-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)
Meld FWB10 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-IWB-6 and Relief Request RR-IHB-8:
WELD NUMBERS 2RCS"64"00-FMA17 2RCS-64-00-FHA18 2RCS"64-00-FMA19 2RCS-64-00-FWA20 2RCS"64-00-FWA21 2RCS"64-00-FMB17 2RCS"64-00-FMB18 2RCS-64"00-FWB19 2RCS 64 00 FHB20 2RCS-64-00-FMB21 Individual welds should not appear on more than one relief request for the following reason:
In Relief Request RR-IMB-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 50% of the Code-required volume has been examined.
Relief Request RR-IHB-8 requests relief from examining the same ten welds from the pipe side of the weld because of varying degrees of austenitic weld over'lay.
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 OX of the Code-required examination was accomplished.
In order for the staff to eva'luate 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 Mile Point Unit 2 relief requests.
C.
For weld number 2RHS-66-57-SW005, in Relief Request RR-IWC-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 weld is both a 100X 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 Nay 16, 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 classifications in order to permit the staff review of the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 to continue.
4 I l