ML18018B435
| ML18018B435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1983 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311040149 | |
| Download: ML18018B435 (11) | |
Text
~ B ~
I L
Ef
'ocket Nos.:
50-400 and 50-401 Mr. E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and 'Construction Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
IRTRIBRIIRR!
I~MB
..I-.RQ.RBBTIR1 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading TMNovak GWKnighton BBuckley JHolonich JLee
- CBarth, EL'D
- JTaylor, IE
Subject:
Request for Additional Information, Materials Engineering Branch (Shearon Harris)
As a result of our ongoing review of the Shearon Harris Final Safety Analysis Report we find that additional information is required to complete our review.
The specific information is contained in the enclosure.
In order to accomplish a timely review, please provide the requested informa-tion within six months of receipt of this letter.
I If any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request is desired, please contact Mr. B. C. Buckley the Shearon Harris Projcet Manager.
Sincerely, Mglmt o18nsd by:
accsgo LK Knighfea cc:
See next page George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing 83ii040ii9 --
PDR ADg~~ 83ioii
,, 8 05000~00 PDR ~
DL
/
DL:LB DL'3 JHo cP:ph BBuckley Gl]
ghton 10/
/83 10/]t /83 10/ J/ /83
~~
'll v f'K 1t rt il
~
)t f
~
II Shea!.n Harris Mr.
E.
E. Utley Executive !lice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power
& Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 cc:
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge 1800 M
- Street, NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 Richard ED Jones, Esq.
Associate General Consel Carolina Power
& Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. Davi d Gordon, Esq.
Associate Attorney G!.neral State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S, Erwin, Esq.
115
.W. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. George Maxwell' Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box'15B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D.
Barham, Jr.,
Esq.
Vice President
& Senior Counse'1 Carolina Power
& Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 a
Mr. John Ruckle, Executive Coordinator Conservation, Council of North Carolina 307 Granville'Road Chapel Hill,'North Carolina 27514 Mr. Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham; North Carolina 27705 Mr. George Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Ph!j)is Lotchin Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.
723 W. Johnson Street Post Office Box 12643
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. Daniel F.
- Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 524 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. Wilson, M.
D.
725 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Adminstrator - Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Karen E. Long,
- Esq, Staff Attorney Public Staff -
NCUC Post Office Box 991
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 hearon Harris Dr. Linda Little Governor 's Waste Nanagement Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ENCLOSURE RE(UEST FOR ADDITINAL INFORMATION 250.0 Material s En ineerin Branch 250.]
For completion of SER Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6, the staff requires that the PSI Program Plan be submitted for review.
Provide a
schedule defining when the entire PSI program will be submitted.
The PSI Program should include reference to the ASME Code Section XI Edition and Addenda that will be used for the selection of components for examinations, lists of the components subject to examinations, lists of the components subject to examination, a
description of the components exempt from examination by the applicable
- code, and the examination isometric drawings.
Paragraph 50.55(b)(2)(iv) requires that ASME Code Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Systems, Emergency Code Cooling (ECCS) Systems, and Containment Heat Removal (CHR) Systems shall be examined.
These systems should not be completely exempted from preservice volumetric examination based on Section XI exclusion criteria contained in IWC-1220.
To satisfy the inspection require-ments of General Design Criteria 36, 39, 42, and 45, the preservice inspection program must include 'volumetric examination of a representative sample of welds in the
Plans for preservice examination of the reactor pressure vessel welds should address the degree of compliance with Regulatory
I
- I EEI EI II fIE I E
r I
EI y
E I4
Guide 1.'150.
Discuss how the procedures used were qualified to assure finding service-induced flaws on the inside surface.
Describe the measures taken to ensure that austenitic stainless steel piping welds are examined using effective techniques and the methods of assuring adequate examination sensitivity over the required examination volume.
Discuss the preservice exami-nation criteria used to record,
- report, and plot geometric or metallurgical ultrasonic indications in the piping systems to assure correlation of baseline data with inservice inspection results.
Table 5.2.3-1 in the FSAR shows -that some reactor coolant fittings, branch nozzles, and flanges are fabricated from cast stainless steel.
Discuss the ultrasonic examination of welds fabricated from this material in these components i.e.,
cast-to-cast or cast-to-wrought austenitic stainless steel welds.
The ASME Code,Section XI, 1977 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1978 and 1980 Edition specifies the use of Appendix III of Section XI for ferritic piping welds.
If this requirement is not applicable (for example, for austenitic piping welds),
ultrasonic'xamination is required by Section XI to be conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Article 5 of Section V, as amended by IMA-2232.
A technical justification is required if any alternatives are used.
If Section XI, Appendix III, Supplement 7, will be used for the examination of austenitic piping welds, discuss the following:
,"1 t
il 1.
All modifications permitted by Supplement 7.
2.
Methods of qualifying the procedure for examination through the weld (if complete examination is to be considered for examination conducted with only one side access).
l
/
i II w 1 J,
1'T
When using either Article 5 of Section V or Appendix III of Section XI for examination of either ferritic or austenitic pipin'g welds, the following should be incorporated:
l.
Any crack-like indication, regardless of ultrasonic ampli-tude, discovered during examination of piping welds or adjacent base metal materials should be recorded and inves-tigated by a Level II or Level III examiner to the extent necessary to determine the shape, identity, and location of the reflector.
2.
The Owner should evaluate and take corrective action for the disposition of any indication investigated and found to be other than geometrical or metallurgical in nature.
All preservice examination requirements defined in Section XI of'he ASME Code that have been determined to be impractical must be identified and a supporting technical justification for requests for relief must be provided.
Indicate an antic-ipated date for submittal of these relief requests.
The relief request submittal should include at least the fol.lowing information:
1.
For ASME Code Class 1 and 2 components, provide a table similar to IWB-2500 and IWC-2500 confirming that either the Section XI preservice examination was performed on the component or relief is requested.
2.
Where relief is requested for pressure retaining welds in the reactor vessel, identify the specific welds that did not receive a 100K preservice ultrasonic examination and indicate the extent of the examination that was performed.
3.
Where relief is requested for piping system welds (Examination Category B-J, C-F, and C-G), provide a list of the specific welds that did not receive a complete Section XI preservice examination including drawing or isometric identification number,
Indicate the extent of the preservice examination that was performed.
When the volumetric examination was performed from one side of the weld, discuss whether the entire weld volume and the heat affected zone (HAZ) and base metal on the far side of the weld were examined.
State the primary reason that a specific examination is impractical (e.g.,
support of component restricts
- access, fitting prevents adequate ultrasonic coupling on one side, component-to-component welds prevents ultrasonic examination, etc.).
Indicate any alternative or supplemental examinations performed and methods of fabrication examination.
~ ~
A