ML18093B292
| ML18093B292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1988 |
| From: | Stone J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| TAC-66932, NUDOCS 8811140388 | |
| Download: ML18093B292 (6) | |
Text
...
Docket No. 50-272 Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
Dear Mr. Miltenberger:
November.1988
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NO. 66932)
RE:
SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 In reviewing the Inservice Inspection Program Plan and the associated requests for relief as forwarded by letters dated October 23, 1987 and December 23, 1987, we find that additional information is needed as detailed in the enclosure.
In order to meet our projected review schedule it is requested that a response be provided within forty-five (45) days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this request please call.
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Doc~et File NRC PDR/LPDR PDI-2 Reading SVarga/BBoger WButler MO'Brien JStone/MThadani OGC EJordan/BGrimes ACRS (10)
MHum, EMTB BBrown, INEL PDI-2/PM PDI-2/D JStone:tr WButler Sincerely,
/s/
James C. Stone, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II ll I g I 88
\\ \\ I~/ 88 do11140~8o oo11U~
1 PDR ADOCK 05000272 Q
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-272 Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Post Office Box ?.36 Hancocks Bridge, New JersPy 08038
Dear Mr. Miltenberger:
November 9, 1988
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NO. 66932)
RE:
SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 In reviewing the Inservice Inspection Program Plan and the associated requests for relief as forwarded by letters dated October 23, 1987 and December 23, 1987, we find that additional information is needed as detailed in the enclosure.
In order to meet our projected review schedule it is requested that a response be provided within forty-five (45) days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this request please call.
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page Sincerely,
~t~
James C. Stone, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric &,Gas Company cc:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Conner and Wetterhann Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-Washington, QC
~0006 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Law Department - Tower SE 80 Park Place Newark, N,J 07101 Mr. L. K. Mi1ler General Manager - Salem Operations Salem Generating Station P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. S. laBruna Vice President - Nuclear Operations Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Robert Traee, Mayor lower Alloways Creek Township t-1uni cipa l Ha 11 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Richard W. Borchardt, Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer I Hancocks Bridge, NJ 0~038 Richard F. Engel Deputy Attorney General Department of Law and Public Safety CN-112 State House Annex -
Trenton, NJ Q8625 Mr. David M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey CN 411 Trenton, NJ 08625 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Richard R. McGlynn, Commission Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersev 101 Commerce Street Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mar.v 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Bruce A.
P~eston, Manager licensing and Regulation Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate*
1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Morgan J. Morris, III General Manager - Operating license Atlantic Electric P.O. Box 1500 1199 Blaak Horse Pike Pleasantville, NJ 08232 Delmarva Power & Light Company c/o Jack Urban General Mana9er, Fuel Supply 800 KinQ Street P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, DE 19899 J
ENCLOSURE Reguest for Additional Information - Second 10-Year Interval Inservice
.lnspection Program Plan
- 1.
Scope/Status of Review Throughout the service life of a water-cooled nuclear power facility, 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) requires that components (including supports) which are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Class i, Class 2, and Class l meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in the ASME Code Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components.
This section of the regulations also requires that inservice examinations of components and system pressure tests conducted during the successive 120-month inspection interval shall comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month inspection interval, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein.
The components (including supports) may meet requirements set forth in subsequent editions and addenda of this Code which are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a{b) subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein.
Based on the start date of January 1, 1988 for the second 10-year i*nterval, the Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of the 1983 Edition, Summer 1983. Addenda (83S83) of the ASME Code Section XI except that the extent of examination for Code Class 2 piping welds has been determined by ASME Code Case N-408, "Alternate Rules for Examination of Class 2 Piping,Section XI, Division l.
11 As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that certain Code examination requirements are impractical and relief is requested, the licensee shall submit information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support that determination.
The staff has reviewed the available information in the Salem Generatinq Station, Unit 1, Second 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 0, -
submitted by letters dated October 23, 1987 and December 23, 1987, and the requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical *
- 2.
Additional Information/Clarification Reguired Based on the above review, the staff has concluded that the following information and/or clarification is required in order to complete the review of the ISI Program Plan:
A.
The staff notes that the Containment Spray System has been completely exempted from inservice examinations during the second 10-year interval and only 5.3 percent of the Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal System are scheduled for examination.
Paragraph. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(iv) requires that ASME Code Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Emergency Core Cooling (ECC), and Containment Heat Removal (CHR) systems ~hall be examined.
These systems should not be completely exempted from inservice volumetric examination based on Section XI exclusion criteria contained in IWC-1220.
The staff has previously determined that a 7.5% augmented volumetric sample constitutes an acceptable resolution at similar plants. A volumetric examination should be performed on at least a 7.5% sample of the Class 2 piping welds in the Containment Spray, Chemical and Volume Control, Safety Injection, and Residual Heat Removal Systems.-
- 8.
Request for Relief No. 1:
Relief is requested from performing the inservice examination for the inaccessible portions of the Examination Category 8-F, 8-H, 8-J, C-A, C-B, C-C, C-F-1, and C-G welds listed in Attachment 5-13 of the !SI Program Plan.
This relief request has not been supported by adequate descriptive and detailed technical information. Therefore, the staff requests the following information:
(1)
For each of the welds listed, provide a detailed description of the obstructions or limitations which will be encountered during the course of the examination(s) (e.g. drawings/sketches may be helpful when describing weld/component configurations, interferences, etc.);
(2)
Provide an estimate of the percentage of the Code-required examination(s) that can be performed for each of the welds listed; (3)
State the extent to which the examinati~n sample has been increased to make up for the portions of the welds not examined; and (4)
With regard to the following nozzle-to-safe and welds listed as Examination Category B-F, Item 85.130, should these welds be listed as Item 85.40 as they are pressurizer nozzle-to-safe end
.welds?
6-PR-1105-1 6-PR-1104-1 6-PR-1103-1 4-PR-1100-1 The staff considers inservice examinations of the pressure-retaining dissimilar metals welds such as the subject safe-end welds crucial to plant safety,"therefore, the Licensee should provide adequate descriptive and detailed technical information to support the relief request.
C.
Request for Relief No. 4:
Relief is requested from performing the Code-required hydrostatic pressure tests of portions of the 3/4-inch Class 2 piping of the Residual Heat Removal and Safety-Injection Systems at the required test pressures of 565 PSI and 750 PSI.
As a proposed alternative, the subject lines will be pressurized to the nominal operating pressure (80~90 PSI} of the demineralize~ water system.
Provide information with regard to the hydrostatic pressure testing of the piping adjacent to the portions of piping for which relief is requested. Discuss the possibility of including the subject portions of piping in the hydrostatic tests of the adjacent piping.
D.
Request for Relief No. 5:
Relief is requested from performing the Code-required inservice VT-3 and VT-4 visual examinations and inservice (functional) testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 snubbers.
As a proposed alternativej visual examinations and functional testing will be performed in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications.
E.
Discuss the extent to which the proposed alternative visual examination meets the intent of the Code-required VT-3 and VT-4 visual examinations.
How will the proposed alternatfve ex-aniiriation result in an increase in the overall level of plant quality and safety, as stated in the relief request?
Plans for inservice examination of the Reactor Pressure Vessel welds should address the degree of compliance with Regulatory Guide*l.150, "Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel Welds During Preservice and InserVice Examinations." Discuss the near-surface examination and resolution with regard to finding service induced flaws and the use of electronic gating as related to the volume of material near the surface that is not being examined.