ML19350D367
| ML19350D367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1981 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berry G POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104150325 | |
| Download: ML19350D367 (5) | |
Text
k
,o a ter, e
+
o UNITED STATES
!')
~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.,.... /
April 3, 1981 Docket No. 50-286 S '/'
l ^. '
0
~~
Mr. George T. Berry, President fd Dg'd@4rg8/A and Chief Operating Officer x;Q Power Authority of the State
\\c
',.s of New York
\\q/>'u 10 Columbus Circle N
New York, New Yr,rk 10019
Dear Mr. Berry:
We have reviewed the inservice inspection program for Indian Point, Unit No. 3, tha t was submitted December 12, 1980. We also reviewed the infor-mation yoa provided in your June 27, 1980 letter. Based on our review, we will 'ieed additional information, as indicated in the enclosure, to continur: our evaluation. Please provide this information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely
[
'S ed di f
Operating Reactors) Branch #1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
l Request for Additional l
Infonnation cc w/ encl:
See next page r
l 1
8104150 $ b
1 i
Mr. ' George T. Berry i
Power Authority of the State of New York White Plains Public Library '
~ Mr. J. P. Bayne, Senior Vice Pres.
j cc:
i White Plains, New York 10601 Power Authority, of the State 100 Martine Avenue of New York
~
10 Columbus Circle l
Mr. Charles M. Pratt New York, New York 10019 Assistant General Counsel 1
lf Power Authority of the Mr. John C. Brons, Residant Manager State of. New York Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant 10 Columbus Circle P.O. Box 215 New York, New York 10019 Buchanan, New York 10511 Ms. Ellyn Weiss Ezra I. Bialik Sheldon, Harmon and Weiss Assistant Attorney General 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Environmental Protection Bureau Washington, D. C.
20006 New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center Dr. Lawrence D. Quarles New York, New York '10047 Apartment 51 Kcadal at I ongwood Kennett Squa,re, Pennsylvania 19348 Mr. George M. Wilverding Manager - Nuclear Licensing Power Authority of the State. of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Theodore A. Rebelowski Resident Inspector Indian Point Nuclear Generating U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 "Joan Holt, Project Director l
New York Public Interest l
Research Group, Inc.
5 Beekman Street New York, New York 10038 I
e 8
9
.--_,--m
i ENCLOSURE i
INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
)
Inservice Inspection Section Materials Engineering Branch
- 1. Confirm that all deviations from Section XI requirements have been noted in your ISI program submittal of December 12, 19 80 or meet the criteria of Paragraph IWA-i 2240 in the code.
Describe the records which are retained when IWA-2240 is invoked.
'i
- 2. The Indian Point 3 Inservice Inspection Program you have submitted for review covers the second inspection period in the first ten year interval.
Paragraph 50.55a(g)(4)(iii) now permits the same code edition and addenda to be used for the balance of the first ten year interval. Your program may therefore be revised at your option to include examinations and relief requests for the last period in the first interval.
- 3. You state that Class 3 syste=s which are in continuous operation during all modes of plant operation cannot be subjected to the code pressure tests.
Describe the program that will be utilized for visual examinations, including frequency and extent of examinations.
- 4. Appendix III, " Ultrasonic Examination of Class 1 and 2 Ferritic Steel Piping Systems" in the Winter 1975 Addenda of Section XI is not approved in 10CFR 50.55a(b). However, Appendix III in the 1977 Edition through Summer 1978 Addenda is approved and may be~used in your program. Alternatively, you may provide for our review and evaluation a detailed listing of all differences between the two versions of Appendix III.
Since DAC recording levels are not specified in Appendix III, the guidelines presetaed in the April 1 and 2,1980 meeting between the NRC staff and PASNY wt must be incorporated into your program. They are:
a) Indicaticas cf 50% of D.*C or greater shall be recorded.
b) Any indication 100% of DAC or greater shall be evaluated by a Level II or Level III examiner to the extent necessary to determine the l
size, shape, identity, and location of the reflector.
~ c) Any non-geometric indication 20% of DAC or greater discovered during the ultrasonic examination shall be recorded and investigated by a Level II or Level III examiner to the extent necessary to determine the shape, identity, and location of the reflector.
- 5. The proposed inspection plan for code Class 1 and 2 welds utilizing various requirements from the 1974 Edition and the 1977 Edition through Summer 1978 Addenda is not explicitly defined and cannot be evaluated. Supply specific information concerning the extent of examination, the areas and volumes to be examined, and methods of examination for each code category of piping. elds.
Our review and evaluation will be based upon compliance with 50.55a(b)(2) in 10CFR50.
6 Your reference to Paragraph T-532 in Section V for extent of pipe weld examinations l
l l
l
I i
- I is not germane since you have requested to use Appendix III in Section XI.
Discuss your degree of compliance with the extent of examination requirements in Appendix III and Section XI for pipe to fitting and pipe to vessel nozzle welds.
I Requests for. relief from examinations of pipe welds with restricted access j
due to supports or hangers will be evaluated af ter the welds are identified.
I j
Para;raph IWC-1220(c) in the 1974 Edition of Section XI permits ECCS components 7.
to be exempted f rom volumetric and surf ace examinations provided the control f
of fluid chemistry is verified through periodic sampling. The control of fluid chemistry is intended to minimj ze corrosive effects. The " chemistry control" provision was deleted from the 1977 Edition of Section XI because practical evaluation, review, and acceptance standards were not defined.
This exemption is not an acceptable basis for eliminating volumatric or surf ace examinations of ECCS components. Revise your program to include the lines and components previously exempted by IWC-1220(c).
List the welds in the emergency core cooling, residual heat removal and containment heat removal syste=s which are scheduled for volumetric and/or surface examinations in your program.
8.
Your program states that code required examinations will be perfor=ed on five or ten percent of the lower head peel segment meridional welds and the lower head disc to peel segment circumferential weld. Indicate if felief is required for these welds. If relief is necessary, provide, evidence, with drawings if necessary.that code required examinations from inside and outside the vessel are impractical due to the limitations of design, gecmetry, or materials of construction. Also, furnish an estimate of the radiation exposure in man-rem to complete these examinations. Discuss the feasibility of perform-ing remote inspections where radiation is the only justification for relief.
n Confirm that all Category B-A reactor welds will be examined in accordance with code requirements, particularly Figures IWB-3510.1 and IW3-3510.2 in the Summer 1974 addenda ;a the 1974 Edition of Cactica XI.
I Indicate if partial volumetric or surface examinatiens can be performed on the closure head disc to peel segment weld.
9.
Provide a sketch or drawing illustrating the limited access or describe in t
l detail the limitations which prevent surface examinations of reactor vessel l
no::le to safe-end welds. Estimate the radiation exposure in man-rem to conduct j
these examinations. Similarly, provide information describing the limited access of the pressurizer for examination of Category B-3 longitudinal I
and circumferential welds. To maintain the code required weld length to be examined in the pressurizer, accessible welds should be inspected in excess I
of the code requirements where practical.
Indicate if welds considered inaccessible for volumetric or surface examination i
will be subjected to visual examinations during pressure testing.
- 10. Estimate the percentage of code required volume and area which can be l
examined in the steam generator noz le to safe end and safe end to pipe l
welds. Confirm that these welds will be subjected to visual. ext =inations during pressure testing.
l u,.
-g--ww-y-y
_g,.
-_---+--s
_-ee m
~
! j
- 11. Verify that surf ace examinations will be performed on the stainless steel cibows in the crossover leg of the RCS.
Indicate the number of elbows for which relief is required.
- 12. Discuss your conformance with the 1977 Edition through Summer 1978 Addenda t
l requirements for Class r integrally welded supports for piping and reactor 4
coolant pumps.
j I
g
- 13. Estimate the percentage of code required volume which can be examined in l
reactor coolant branch nezzle connections and Class 2 branch pipe to pipe welds.
l' s
ji
- 14. Provide additional information concerning the " structure and nature" of integrally welded pump support materials which make UT impractical.
i I
t I
t f
i I
..,