ML20011F707
| ML20011F707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1990 |
| From: | Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-65974, NUDOCS 9003070236 | |
| Download: ML20011F707 (7) | |
Text
-
March 1,1990 Docket No. 50 334 Mr. J. D. Sieber, Vice President Nuclear Group Duquesne Light Company 4
Post Office Box 4-Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Deer Mr. Sieber:
j.
F
SUBJECT:
DEAVER VALLEY I. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SECOND TEN. YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC 65974)
By letter dated August 11, 1989, you provided the NRC with the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. Second 10. year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 1, and associated relief requests. As a result of our continuing review efforts on this issue, we developed additional information needs (see Enclosure).
Please respond to the questions in the enclosure within 45 days of receipt of this letter. We are, of course, available to discuss any of these questions if you need any clarification.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L. 96 511.
Sincerely, Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1 4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTIONeDockdFile~
NRC & Local PDRs Plant File 5.varga(14E4)"
'"B;"Boger(14A2)
S. Norris P. Tam OGC E. Jordan (MNBB 3302)
ACRS(10)
George Johnson (9 H 15)
J0FC
- LA:PDI-4
- PM:PDI.4
- PD: DI 4
-N,AME :SN W.........:.......
.[.................:............:............:.........
- PTam:1m DATE :S / / /90
- 3 / [ /90
- y / /90 f
,0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
' Document Name: TAC 65974 1
9003070236 900301 3)
PDR ADOCK 03000334 illi
_ IJ PDC V
1\\
4 Mr. J. Sieber Beaver Valley Power Station Duquesne Light Company Units 1 & 2 cc:
Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Bureau of Radiation Protection Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Pennsylvania Department of 2300 N Street, N.W.
Environmental Resources Washington, DC 20037 ATTN:
R. Janati Post Office Box 2063 Kenny Grada, Manager Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Nuclear Safety Duquesne Light Company Mayor of the Borrough of P. O. Box 4 Shippingport Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Post Office Box 3 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Ashley C. Schannauer Assistant City Solicitor City of Pittsburgh 313 City-County Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Commissioner Roy it. Smith Regional Administrator, Region I West Virginia Department of Labor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Building 3, Room 319 475 Allendale Road Capitol Complex King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Charleston, WV 25305 John D. Borrows Resident Inspector Director, Utilities Department U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Utilities Commission Post Office Box 1B1 180 East Broad Street Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Post Office Box 3321 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321 O
I
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50 334 MATERIALS AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY Recuest for Additional Information - Second 10 Year Interval Inservice Ins'oection Procram Plan The staff has reviewed the available information in the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit I, Second 10 Year Interval Inservice Inspection i
Program Plan, Revision 1, submitted August 11, 1989, and the requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical.
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 !$1 Program and relief requests:
A.
Section 2.7 of the Program Plan states that " Augmented nondestructive examinations which are long-term requirements in excess of the ASME Section XI requirements (i.e., RCP flywheel inspection) are incorporated into this program for ease of administration." Please provide a complete list of the augmented examination requirements which have been incorporated in the Beaver Valley, Unit 1, Second 10 Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan.
It is observed that the Program Plan does not reference NRC l
Regulatory Guide 1.150 for reactor pressure vessel examinations or Branch Technical Position ASB 3-1 for examination of high energy piping welds in the break exclusion zone. Confirm that the Beaver Valley, Unit 1, ISI Program Plan is in compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150 and Branch Technical Position ASB 3-1.
B.
Section 4.8 of the Program Plan states that 'Whenever possible, ultrasonic (UT) calibration blocks that were used during the first l
l
% or w
j interval will be used for the second interval examinations."
Confirm that the existing piping weld calibrstion blocks either meet the requirements of 83S83 Appendix 111 or that they will be modified / replaced.
If replacement is required, the point of reference from previous examinations can be maintained by a calibration comparison of th' existing and replacement calibration e
blocks.
C.
Please provide isometric drawings showing the components, piping
]
welds, and supports that Section XI of the ASME Code requires to be l
examined during the second 10 year interval.
These drawings, along with the weld listing provided in the August II, 1989 submittal, will permit the staff to determine if the extent of ISI examinations meets the applicable Code requirements.
1 D.
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 shall' be examined. These systems should not be completely exempted from inservice volumetric examination based on Section XI exclusion criteria contained in IWC-1220.
From the information in the August-11, 1989 submittal, the staff has not identified any CHR
' welds receiving ISI examinations during the second 10 year inspection interval.
Verify that the CHR system has not been completely exempted from ISI examinations and that a representative sampling of welds in this system will receive volumetric examination during the second 10-year inspection interval.
Similar plants have included a 7.5% sampling of the welds between the CHR pump and the first weld beyond the isolation valve inside containment.
E.
Relief Request BVl B3.120-1, Rev. 1 (Pressurizer nozzle inside radius sections) and Relief Request BVI-83.140-1, Rev.1 (Steam Generator nozzle inside radius sections): The Licensee has requested total relief from volumetric examination of the Class 1 Pressurizer and Steam Generator nozzle inside radius sections.
Although the Licensee may not have confidence in this examination I
t i,*
for determining the condition of the subject components, sufficient information has not been supplied to establish that the Code-required volumetric examination is impractical to perform.
If relief is to be considered, sufficient technical justification demonstrating impracticality must be provided. What attempts have been made to obtain construction drawings, select transducers, and perform the Code required volumetric examination of the nozzle inner radius sections?
If the full Code-required volumetric examination cannot be completed, describe a "best effort" volumetric examination that could be performed.
i F.
Relief Request BVI-85.70-1, Rev. 1 (Steam Generator nozzle safe end-to-pipe welds):
Please provide an estimate of the percentage of i
the Code required volumetric examination that can and will be performed, for each of the subject welds, during the second 10 year interval.
G.
Relief Requests BVl B9.ll, Rev. 0; BVI-C5.ll-1, Rev.1; and BVI-C5.51, Rev. 0 (Class 1 and 2 circumferential piping welds):
For each of the welds listed in these relief requests, provide a description of the specific obstructions or limitations encountered during the course of examination (s), and an estimate of the percentage of the Code-required examination (s) that can and will be performed on each of the welds.
H.
Relief Requests BVI-C5.12-1, Rev. 0, and BVI-C5.52-1, Rev. 0 (Class 1 and 21ongitudinal piping welds):
The Licensee's " Basis for Relief" discusses volumetric examination of circumferential piping welds (i.e. pipe-to-fitting, pipe to-nozzle, pipe-to-valve, and pipe-to flange), stating that examination can only be performed from the pipe side of the weld.
If relief is to be considered, the
" Basis for Relief" should be revised to include technical
[
justifications for relief based on volumetric examination of longitudinal piping welds.
Also, for each of the welds listed please provide a description of b
F
-s
'o y
the specific obstructions or limitations encountered during the l
course of examination (s), and an estimate of the percentage of the l
Code-required examination (s) that can and will be performed for each weld.
I.
Relief Request BVl 89.31-1, Rev. 1 (RCS branch connection welds):
With regard to the volumetric examination of pressure retaining branch pipe connection welds for nominal pipe size 4-inches and greater in Class I systems, the staff has recently noted significant improvements in the techniques being used for volumetric examinations from the branch connection side of the welds.
List the percentage of the Code required volumetric examination that can and will be performed for each of the subject welds and discuss what efforts Duquesne Light Company has made to perform the Code required volumetric examination from the branch connection side of the subject welds.
J.
The following Relief Requests list radiation levels as the basis for t
relief:
BVI-IWC C A (Rev. 0)
BVI C1.20-1 (Rev, 1)
BVI-C1.10 1 (Rev. 1)
BVl-C1.20-2 (Rev. 1 BVI Cl.10 2 (Rev. 1)
BVI C1.20-3 (Rev. 1 BVI-C1.10-3 (Rev. 1)
BVI-C3.10-1 (Rev. O BVI-Cl.10-4 (Rev. 1)
The Licensee has stated that the Code-required examinations will not be performed if the examiner will receive a whole body dose in excess of 1250 mr in order to complete any one examination.
Five of the relief requests indicate a general background radiation ranging from 100 to 200 mr/hr, three relief requests indicate 100 to 200 mr/hr backgrounds with 2 r/hr hot spots on the component, and one relief request indicates a general b.ckground of 200 mr/hr with a 7 r/hr hot spot.
Staff estimates of the times that might be required to complete the Code-required examination, by the examiner, indicate that the majority of the Code-required examinations can probably be performed within the 1250 mr whole body dose limit as established by the Licensee.
r
]
i
]
The Licensee should consider withdrawing these relief requests until
)
such time as it is determined that relief is required.
If it has j
been determined that relief is required, the following information to support the request for relief should be provided:
(1) radiation levels at the specific test area; (2) the total time required to perform the specific examination; (2) total estimated man REM exposure involved in the examination; r
(3) consideration of shielding which might reduce the radiation level; and (4) considerations for remote inspections.
Other Licensees, with similar operating experience, have not i
requested relief from examination of these particular items based on radiations levels.
The schedule for timely completion of this review requires that the Licensee provide, by the requested date, the above requested information and/or clarifications with regard to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Second 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 1.
I l
Principal contributor:
George Johnson, with assistance from Idaho National Engineering l
Laboratory, contractor i
l l
l
,~