ML17055D443
| ML17055D443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1987 |
| From: | Benedict R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-60451, NUDOCS 8712210157 | |
| Download: ML17055D443 (8) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-220 Mr. Charles V. Mangan Senior Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212 DISTRUBTION NRCPDR SVarga BBoger CVogan RBendict OGC EJor dan JPartlow ACRS(10)
PDI-1 Rdg.
BTurovlin FLitton JJohnson
Dear Mr. Mangan:
SUBJECT:
RE(UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMS (TAC 60451)
RE:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1 By letter dated April 1, 1987, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submitted relief requests for the first and second ten-year interval Inservice Inspection Programs.
The programs and relief requests have been reviewed by the NRC staff and its contractor, and we find that we need additional information to complete our review.
The enclosure to this letter discusses the needed information.
Sincerely Robert A. Benedict, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page PDI-1 CVogyn 6" 12/ig /87 PDI-1 RBenedict 12/I//87 PDI-1 RCapr 2/~ g/87 87i22iOi57 87i2iS PDR ADOCK 05000220 8
~
~
t
~ ) t
/'1 I
t i
1 ll' V
,I r I t,
lr Ir~
J'II r t II II II II r
tt II ~
V dl I
lt t>>
1 I'3
~,
I iI I
II r
IV 'll I
il il I
tt I
, lt
- )'
VV il p
il
'I
'l t
I'
Hr. C. V. Hangan Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1 CC:
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner 8 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Frank R. Church, Supervisor Town of Scriba R.
D.
82
- Oswego, New York 13126 Mr. Thomas Perkins General Supt.-Nuclear Generation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New. York 13093 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 126
- Lycomino, New York 13093 Hr. Gary Wilson, Esquire Niagara Hohawk 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 Ms.
Donna Ross New York State Energy Office 2 Empire State Plaza 16th Floor
- Albany, New York 12223 Hr. Thomas W.
Roman Unit 1 Station Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093
~
~
A
RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I
C L
E R
U S
NIAGARA MOHAlE POWER CORPORATION NIN A. Status of Review The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, has been evaluated by the staff.
The Program Plan was determined to be acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4),
contingent upon satisfactory resolution of any subsequent requests by the licensee for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical.
On April I, 1987, the licensee submitted relief requests for both the first and second 10-year inspection intervals.
Based upon its review of these relief requests, the staff needs the following information in order to complete its review.
B.
Additional Information Re uested I.
Request for Relief 1IIRR2 for the first interval and ISI-9 for the second interval:
Relief is requested from examining 100K of the Code-required volume of all welds fn 10% (equal to four) of the peripheral CRD housings.
The licensee states that the subject welds cannot be fully inspected ultrasonically due to limitations of design.
The coverage of each of the four ultrasonically examined CRD housing welds is estimated to be 50% of the Code-required volume.
A sector of approximately 180 degrees of each housing circumference is obstructed by adjacent housings and their hydraulic lines.
Can 50% of four additional welds be examined in order to meet the intent of the lOX Code requirement7 2.
Request for Relief ISI-1 for the second interval:
Relief is reouested from performing the Code-required volumetric examination of the beltline region welds.
The licensee states that the Code-required volumetric examination of the welds in the beltline region is impractical based on the existing design which precludes access to the welds.
All Item No. Bl.10 welds that are accessible for volumetric examination should be examined as an alternative to the examination of the beltlinc region welds.
Identify those welds which will be examined as an alternative to examining the beltline region welds.
3.
Request for Relief 1IIRR4A for the first interval:
Relief is requested from performing the Code-required visual examination
E
~
of internal pressure boundary surfaces of one of the required ten Group 9 - Reactor Vessel Head Safety Valves in the Main Steam system.
The licensee also requests relief from the requirements to examine valve bodies by qualified examiners per Section XI Subarticle IWA-2300 and to document results and evaluations in accordance with Section XI Article IWA-6000.
The licensee states:
"Group 9 valves received maintenance inspections by the Owner's quality control personnel.
Other maintenance inspections were performed when all Group 9 valves were refurbished.
Fifty percent of the valves are rotated out of service and are replaced by spares each refueling outage. All were sent off-site each outage for refurbishing and testing prior to being returned to service or placed in storage as spares.
Relief is requested from the examiner oualification and certification requirements of Section XI Subarticle IWA-2300 and documentation requirements of Article IWA-6000.
Documentation, inspector certification of training and qualification, specific visual findings of valve body and other internal pressure retaining surfaces, and evaluation of results are not in place.
Visual inspection similar to that required is directly evidenced by selective replacement, repair or adjustment of parts and indirectly by accomplishment of pressure and oper ability tests conducted off-site."
No technical basis for requesting relief is supplied in this relief request.
During the time the valves were off-site, wet e examinations performed that were equivalent or superior to the Code-required visual examination7 As stated in IWA-2240 of Section XI, alternative examination methods, a combination of
- methods, or newly developed techniques may be substituted for the methods, specified in Section XI, provided the Inspector fs satisfied that the results are demonstrated to be equivalent or superior to those of the specified method, If an IWA-2240 evaluation cannot be performed by an Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector (ANII) and, thus, relief is still requested, provide explicit information to justify why relief should be granted.
4.
Requests for Relief lIIRRSA and lIIRRSB for the first interval and ISI-10 for the second interval:
The licensee states that a
significant portion of the welds for which relief is requested is inaccessible for examination and requests total relief from the Code-required volumetric examination.
For each of the subject welds, provide an estimate of the percentage of the Code-required volume that is accessible for examination.
5.
Request for Relief lIIRR3 for the first interval: The licensee lists two reactor recirculation pump casing welds (32-SW-11S-0 and 32-SW-15S-9) that received a liquid penetrant examination.
Verify that weld number 32-SW-15S-9 is the correct weld number.
4 J