ML20040G084
| ML20040G084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gary R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202110233 | |
| Download: ML20040G084 (4) | |
Text
.
e DISTRIBUTION:
r"Dockiet;Fildi bcc.
TERA
- LB#1 Rdg.
PDR JYoungblood LPDR MRushbrook NSIC JAN 13 N SBurwell TIC DEisenhut ACRS (16)
Docket flos.: 50-445 SHanauer and 50-446 RMattson JKramer RVollmer Mr. R. J. Gary RHartfield, MPA Executive Vice President 0 ELD and General Manager 0IE Texas Utilities Generating Company WVJohnston 2001 Bryan Tower SPawlicki Dallas, Texas 75201 MHum
Dear Mr. Gary:
Subjact: Guidance on Resolution of the Preservice In:;pection Program The Safety Evaluation Report issued in July 1981 identified the preservice and inservice inspection program.for compliance to 10 CFR 50.55a(g) as an outstanding item in the staff's review of the Cominche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
This item remains unresolved at this time.
The Inservice Inspection Section, Materials Engineering Branch (MTEB) has prepared a statemerit on the status of its review of this matter, and provided additional guidance regarding the resolution of the preservice inspection program for Comanche Peak; see Enclosure 1.
The MTEB reviewer and its Pacific Northwest Laboratories consultants are prepared to meet with your representatives and Westinghouse to discuss any technical questions you may have.
If you have any questions on this subject, please contact ect Manager for this facility.
M Sincerely,
/N c %W '
%?.
Ori.ctet signed by:
P D. J. Youngblood M] N
/
y g"p DMY,[%'ga l
- W a
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No.1 (d
Division of Licensing I#
Enclosure:
Guidance on Resolution of the Preservice Inspection Program
.Tha reporting and/or recordkeeping cc w/ encl.: See next page require::nnts cont"i" d i" thl* t*tt #
8202110233 820113
'rcet ;cuer than ton resp:ndentS ;
gDRADOCK 05000445
'$.:ref ero. CMU Cl "#""e, is a t r quired t
.a r P.~.i. 9G-511.
- 4\\11 Sd.; $M,Y,lg,,
, DL,h,f,,
DI :l:Bf1 g,7
- omce,
,.B,J1&,y,q,1 ppg suamue>
1/12/82 1/d>/32
... l /......
oare >
nac rosu m oo-em nacu oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso m.ini -s u mo
1 Mr. R. J. Gary l
Executive Vice President and L
General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
J. Marshall Gilmore Debevoise & Liberman 1060 West Pipelir.e Road 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Hurst, Texas 76053 Washington, D. C.
20036-Mr. Robert G. Taylor Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station Worsham. Forsythe & Sampels 2001 Bryan Tower c/o V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75201 Commission P. O. Box'38 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Glen Rose, Texas 76043 s
Manager - Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Richard Fouke 2001 Bryan Tower Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation Dallas, Texas 75201 1668-B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
Mr. John T. Collins 393 Seventh Avenue U. S. NRC, Region IV New York, New York 10001 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Mr. A. T. Parker Arlington, Texas 76011 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division
~
P. O. Bo'x 12548, Capitol Station
~
Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sou.nd Energy 1426 South Polk '
Dallas, Texas 75224
O ENCLOSURE 1 Inservice Inspection Section, Materials Engineering Branch Guidance on Resolution of the Preservice Inspection Program Status of the Comanche Peak Review:
The applicant submitted a PSI Plan for Unit 1 on February 11, 1981 based on the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code. At a meeting in August 1981, the applicant indicated that the PSI Program was being voluntarily updated to meet the requirements of later Section XI requirements. The applicant estimated that the updated PSI Program will be completed in mid-1982 because Westinghouse wants to schedule the entire PSI examination during one period and sufficient systems have not been completed and accepted by the utility to prepare the examination isometric drawings. The applicant has responded to our June 1,1981 request for information with a commitment to provide the PSI Program and requests for relief from impractical examination requirements when the information is available.
Technical Considerations:
The applicant has the V. C. Summer PSI Program and understands the technical issues that resulted from our SSER review. The ASME Code does not define a specific methodology to perform the ultrasonic examina-tion of cast stainless steel weldments. The ASME Code and 10 CFR 50.55 a(g) does require that the applicant design the components in a manner to enable the performance of inservice examinations. The ASME Code requires that the owner or manufacturer develop special procedures when Code methods are not applicable. These special procedures must be capable of pro-ducing interpretable examination results and shall be proved by demonstration to be capable of detecting discontinuities under the special conditions.
Article IWB-3000 of Section XI does define the acceptance standards for flaw indications that must be detected by the special procedures in the reactor coolant pressure boundary. General Design Criterion 32 also requires that these components be designed to permit periodic inspection to assess their structural and leaktight integrity.
Guidance for the Preparation of the PSI Program:
A summary of the informat. ion required to resolve the technical issues and to complete our review is presented as follows:
(1) A PSI Program in the format and with the depth of information similar to that at V. C. Summer is acceptable.
(2) The UT procedure used to examine the cast stainless steel primary piping should be demonstrated to be effective to detect flaws with representative design configurations and weld surface conditions.
We have reason to believe that the UT technique that the applicant intends to use is not sufficiently optimized. Other inspection agencies use a different transducer design.
J...
. The UT procedure that is used at Comanche Peak should be demonstrated to be capable of reliably detecting and characterizing cracks on the inside surface of the pipe. The NRC has test specimens with well characterized natural and artificial flaws that recently were used to compare the commercial state of practice of most of the major inspection agencies.
If the design configuration and/or weld surface condition limits the examination such that the sound beam must pass through the weld to detect potential flaws in the volume required to be examined, then the demonstration should also be done with one-side access. We will require that the applicant provide the technical bases that the UT procedure that will be used is effective and estimate the type, size, and location of flaw that can be reliably detected.
(3) The UT calibration blocks should be of the same material specification, nominal diameter and nominal wall thickness or pipe schedule as the pipe to be examined as required by Paragraph III-3400 of Section XI.
(4) The reporting of the preservice examination results should be documented in a manner to define qualitatively whether the weldment and the heat affected zone and adjacent base metal on both sides of the weld were examined by ultrasonic angle beam techniques.
(5) The applicant has committed to provide information concerning relief requests in response to our previous questions.
The MTEB reviewer and PNL consultants are prepared to meet with the applicant and Westinghouse to discuss technical questions, and will complete the review after the applicant supplies sufficient information to make a determination,