ML20012E736

Ack Offer to Answer Questions Re NRC Review of Numerous Requests for Relief by Util from Full Compliance W/Plant First 10-yr Inservice Insp Requirements & Submits Questions Re 900327 Ltr

ML20012E736
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/25/1990
From:	Leiderman S WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES (WE THE PEOPLE
To:	Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9004060200
Download: ML20012E736 (3)

Text

i .' . W( The People, Inc, cf the United States Stop Chernob,ei Here f

Marcn 25, 1990 Victor Nerses Project Managtr Project Directorate,1 3 DIVISION Or REACTOR PROJECTS 1/11 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation 0:;1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Wu hington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket No. 50-443 ,

Dear Mr. Nerses:

Thank you for the phone call last Friday morning concerning your receipt of and progress in answering my letter to you , re; questions about NRC's review of numerous ree.'ests for relief by the Public Service of New Hampshire from full compliance with Seabrook Station Unit l's First Ten-Year In-Service Inspection requirements - welding throughout the plant.

This letter is partly to acknowledge your kind offer to get back to me soon to answer my questions, perhaps by conference call from your staff.

I am sure you understand that I also need and expect a timely written response to the questions in my letter, over the signature of the appropriate NRC official. At your option, any conference call can be preliminary to such response or a followup to expand on any answers sent to me by letter.

The second reason for this letter is to ask the following questions which are related to my first letter, dated February 27, 1990: ,

I

1) Phat is the total number of welds at Seabrook Station Unit 17

2) is this the total number of welds that would be subject to inspection if no requests for relief has been asked for by pSNH? ,

If not, what is that number, and what is the reason for tb+

difference? i

3) What is the total number of welds that PSNH is requesting relief from inspecting?

4) How do each of the answers in the above break down by a) welds which are considered safety related and b) those which are not cotisidered safety related?

$) How are these further broken down by systems within Unit 1, using the same terminology used in the 10-Year In-Service Inspection document, viz., Reactor Pressure Yessel, Pressurizer, Steam Generator, Class !

Piping, Class 2 Residual Heat Removal Piping, etc. , etc.?

9004060200 90032".

FDR ADOCK 05000443 H FDC Mr.in Office: llox 277, Rowley, MA 01909,(508) 948 7959

^ '"* 4""f" ' mair <"sainiainm

$o Court St., Plymouth, M A 02361,(508) 746-9300 National Preu illds.,14 & f. Sts., N.W., Washington D.C. 20045,(202) 62k 66tl Officch $ & 6, 3 Pleasant St , Concord, Nil 03301,(603) 228 94F4 Ilayberry Village, Route 9. Kennebunk, Ml! 04043,(207) 967 3111 0

Mr. Victor Nerses .

March 25,1990 page two -

Perhaps the following table will facilitate answering these questions: -

TABLE OF WELDS IN SEABROOK STATION UNIT 1: TOTAL WELDS, WELDS REQUIRING 175PECTION IN THE 10-YEAR PLAN, AND WELDS FOR WHICH PSMH IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM INSPECTION

---

Sa fety-Rela te d--------- --------No n-Sa fe ty--------- --- ----To ta l s --------

Total # 7 Welds f for which Total # # Welds f for which Total f Total f f Welds '

Welds in Plan PSMH wants Welds in Plan PSMH wants Welds in Plan PSNH Wants Weld Locations: relief relief Relief Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressurizer Steam Generator Class 1 Piping Class 2 Residual Heat Removal Piping Other Other Other Rest of Plant GRAND TOTALS:

Answers to these questions are requested because a) the circulated original document only indicates percentages of welds for which the utility has requested relief, not the actual number of welds involved.

Percentages also make it difficult to estimate the workload from which PSNH desires to be relieved, which is important in assessing practicality / impracticality, and b) it appears to me that there is either little shared understanding of which systems, components, welds, etc. are safety-related vs. non-safety related

/ .

(,

Mr. Victor Nerses March 25,1990 page three .

t or there is a rolling definition in use which is thoroughly confusing, l for example, last week when a power supply to Unit l's control rod drive mechanism failed, resulting in a 5\-hour shutdown, a Seabrook spokesman stated that the problem was not safety related. However, even a layperson knows that the control rod drive mechanism is part of a if not the, primary safety system in nuclear plants and essential to keep the chain reaction within design limits.

l As in my original letter, answers to these questions will help me complete comments I plan to submit concerning pSNH requests for relief from requirements in its Seabrook Unit 1 10-Year In. Service Inspection

}

program.

Again, thank you for your call and timely response, e

kR Stuart M. Leiderman enclosed: Letter of February 27, 1990

<