ML18031A865
| ML18031A865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610100563 | |
| Download: ML18031A865 (5) | |
Text
October 3, 1986 Dockets Nos.
50-259/260/296 Mr. S.
A. White Manager of Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
Dear Mr. White:
Distribution:
CDocket~FiTe LSpessard, NRC 8 LPDRs RBernero EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)
HThompson JPartlow RClark SRConnelly NThompson OGC-Bethesda GZech, RII SNorris OIA MGrotenhuis
- SPWeise, RII Plant File HDenton SRichardson,
- JTaylor, IE
- BHayes, OI
- NGrace, RI.I BJYoungblood JHolonich CStahle TKenyon WLong TAlexion FCantrell RWessman IE Your letter of January 17, 1986 advised us of your plans for reinspection of structural welds at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to establish confidence in weld quality.
Your letter stated that you planned to utilize the "Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding At Nuclear Power Plants" (VWAC),
Revision 2, NCIG-01 and "Sampling Plan for Visual Reinspection of Welds,"
NCIG-02.
On April 22, 1986, we advised your staff in a conference call that NCIG-Ol Revision 2
(VWAC) has been accepted generically and, therefore, is acceptable for incorporation into Browns Ferry 1, 2 and 3 FSAR.
Your letter of September 17, 1986 provided your work plan for accomplishing reinspection of selected welds at Browns Ferry.
To complete our review of this document, we need responses to the questions in the enclosure.
In a separate letter, we are providing comments on Volume 3 of the Nuclear Performance Plan, including Section III, 6.0 on the Browns Ferry Welding Program; the latter should be reflected in your response.
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, Daniel R. Muller, Director BWR Project Directorate ¹2 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DBL:PD¹2 SNorris
/
/86 DBL: PD¹ RCl ark;
/~ /m /86 DBL: PD¹2 MGrotenhuis (e /></86 OI5 Per)
/P /~ /86 abi01005b3 Sb1003 PDR ADOCK 05000259 PDR
)
~4~
'I
fir. S. A. White Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3
CC:
General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue E
11B 330 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 W.
C. Drotleff ATTN:
J.
A. Raulston Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hil I Dirve, W12 A12 Knoxville,'ennessee 37902 R. L. Gridley Tennessee Valley Authority 5N 1578 Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 M. J.
May Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602
- Chairman, Limestone County Commission Post Office Box 188
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Ira L. Meyers, M.D.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Steven Roessler U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Training Center Osborne Office Center, Suite 200 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37411 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 311
- Athens, Alabama 35611
Request for Additional Information Reinspection of Selected Welds at Browns Ferry "Welding Project Reinspection Plan" (I)
The licensee needs to submit TVA General Construction Specification G-28, which defines piping weld classification and types.
(2)
The licensee should discuss relationship between different classes of piping welds (e.g.
class E, F, and P) and the ASME Code.
For example, in the acceptance criteria, the licensee stated that the class E pipe weld should meet either N-RT-1 (R4) or ASME Section XI criteria.
The licensee should clarify and provide the basis for this acceptance criteria for all classes of pipe welds.
(3)
The licensee needs to clarify the basis f'r the selection of the 358+
welds chosen.
For example, were these welds chosen based on statistical sampling or were they chosen based on a combination of statistical sampling and "engineering judgement"?
The licensee, should describe the "engineering judgement" that led to welds selected.
(4)
How are these 358 welds distributed among each of the six groups previously discussed?
For example, how many of the 358 welds belong to the cable tray and conduit supports?
What is the percentage of reinspected welds vs. total number of welds in each of the six major groups?
(5)
The licensee should describe how the weld sample population would be increased if any of the welds for a particular category fail the inspection.
(6)
Provide the procedures in document DPM N80E3 that were used as part of the reinspection program.
J II f H
tall H
IH tV II I
I H
H H ~
H