ML20052C680
| ML20052C680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205050376 | |
| Download: ML20052C680 (5) | |
Text
e gd?"
o c
%i DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR ORB #2 Rdg.
Docket Nos. 50-254 isenhut and 50-265 Apg I 51982 I&E R. Bevan 4
S. Norris
//
Mr. L. De1 George R. Ferguson Director of Nuclear Licensing NSIC RE W 3
a Commonwealth Edison Company ACRS (10)
J APR20 W r P. O. Box 767 J. Helpemes Chicago, Illinois 60690
{ u nW8 38,",e"mT 4
Dear Mr. De1 George:
- ~
ut g
g
Subject:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 N
We have detemined that we need certain additional information to complete our review of your proposed Inservice Inspection Program submitted by your letters which are referenced in the enclosure to this letter. To complete oor review in a timely manner, you are requested to respond to the enclosed questions within thirty days of receipt of this letter. Please send a copy of your response directly to:
Dr. D. A. Outlaw Scienca Applications, Inc.
1710 Goodridge Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 The request for information contained in this letter effects fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.LL 96-511.
Sincerely.
ORIGINAL SIGED M Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc: w/ enclosure See next page ORB #2 ORB.
OliB #2 omer >
... s. w....
.... r sunume)..f.l.QEr.i. R..'
Bev Vassallo
- " " " " " ~ " " "
4//,2/82 "47l~ /5T"""" "T7%'782"" '
~ ~ -
- ~ ~
~~ ~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~.
B205050376 B20415 PDR ADOCK 05000254
- NRC G
PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso m ieu - u eaa
i i
I Mr. L. DelGeorge Comonwealth Edison' Company l
cc:
Mr. D. R..Stichnoth The Honorable Tom Corcoran President United States House of Representatives Iowa-Illinois Gas and Washington, D.C.
20515 Electric Company 206 East Second Avenue Quad-Cities Alliance for Safe Davenport, Iowa 52801 Energy and Survival l '.
Mr. Robert Romic Mr. Philip Steptoe 1628 Grant Street Isham, Lincoln & Beale Bettendorf, Iowa 52722 Counselors at Law i
One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Citizens for Safe Energy p
Chicago, Illinois 60603 ATTN: Mr. Robert Miller P. O. Box 23 Mr. Nick Kalivianakas Hillsdale, Illinois 61257 Plant Superintendent Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station James G. Keppler 22710 - 206th Avenue - North l
Regional Administrator, Region III Cordova, Illinois 61242 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt. Road Moline Public Library Glen Ellyn IL 60137 504 - 17th Street Moline, Illinois 61265 Susan H. Sekuler l
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 W. Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 22712 206th Avenue N.
Cordova, Illinois 61242 James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555.
I Dr. Richard F. Foster P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97701
E e
i ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM Quad Cities 1 and 2 1.
Relief Requests Nos. CR-1 and CR Pressure Retaining Welds _ in Reactor Vessel - Code Categories B-A and B-B, Items Bl.1 and Bl.2 (Ref. 1, Pgs 2-10, thru 2-13 and 2-42)
Code Catego'y B-A requires a volumetric examination of 10% of the length of r
each longitudinal weld and 5% of the length of each circumferential weld in the beltline region each 10-year interval. Code Category B-B requires a volumetric examination of 10% of the length of each longitudinal shell weld and 5% of each circumferential shell and head weld each 10-year interval.
Relief request No. CR-1 requests relief from the Code requirements for al!
welds in the beltline based on inaccessibility. No nozzle penetrations are located in the beltline region.
Relief request No. CR-2 requests relief from the Code requirements for some of the shell and all of the bottom head welds based on inaccessibility (see Fig. 1).*
No internal examinations are planned.
The following additional information is requested of Commonwealth Edison (CE):
(a) Have any improvements in state-of-the-art NDE techniques been developed since the program submittal that would permit the examination of any of the required inaccessible welds? Please discuss.
(b) Do you have an ongoing material surveillance program that conforms to 10 CFR 50, Appendix H?
(c) What code and addenda were used in vessel design and construction?
(d) Do you have a fracture toughness surveillance program that conforms to 10 CFR 50, Appendix G?
(e) Please furnish references if the information requested in (b), (c),
and (d) above has been previously documented.
2.
Relief Request No. CR Pressure Retaining Welds in Pi)ing - Triple Flued Heads - Code Category B-J, Item B4.5 (Ref.1, Pgs 2-20 t aru 2-22 and 2-43) i Code Category B-J requires that 25% of the total number of circumferential l
pipe welds be examined each 10-year interval.
It is unlikely that 15 welds will l
be inspectable at any time during the plant life due to inaccessibility. Relief is, therefore, requested from performing the volumetric examination requirements l
of Section XI (see Fig. 2).
l
- Figures from licensee's submittal are not included in this RAI.
l i
1
=
-e The following aelitional information is requested of CE:
(a) Describe the leak detection systems that would serve, and their proximity to, the areas in which these 15 pipe welds are located.
(b) Discuss the capability of the bellows sleeve to withstand the full dynamic effects of a longitudinal or circumferential break of the enclosed process pipe, including jet impingement, pipe whip impact, and environmental effects.
If previously discussed in submittals to NRC, document by reference.
l (t) Do any of the 15 pipe welds involve the welding of dissimilar metals?
3.
Relief Request No. CR React _or Recirculation Pumps - Category B-L-2, Item B5.7 (Ref. 1, pgs 2-27 thru 2-29)
Category B-L-2, Item B5.7, requires visual examination of the internal pressure boundary surfaces of one pump. Licensee requests relief as exami-nation is impractical.
The following additional information is requested of CE:
(a) Has ultrasonic wall thickness measurement been considered as an alternative examination?
(b) What are the manufacturer's recommendations regarding the disassembly of the pumps for regular maintenance?
(c) Based on the industry experience with the pumps, what is the likelihood that the Quad Cities plant will operate ten years without at least one pump being disassembled in each unit for maintenance?
4.
Relief Request No. CR Class 1 Valves Exceeding 4 Inches - Category B-M-2, Item B6.7 (Ref. 1, pgs 2-30 thru 2-32)
Category B-M-2, Item B6.7, requires visual examination of the internal pressure boundary surfaces of valves.
Licensee requests relief as examination is impractical.
The following additional information is requested of CE:
(a) Has ultrasonic wall thickness measurement been considered as an alter-native examination?
(b) Based on industry experience, what is the anticipated maintenance l
frequency for the valves?
5.
Relief Request No. CR Pressure Retaining Nozzle Welds in Vessels -
l Category C-B, Item C1.2 (Ref. 1, Pgs 2-33 thru 2-34, and 2-46)
[
There are two 18-inch diameter nozzles in the Class 2 portion of each of the two RHR System heat exchangers tnat are fabricated with reinforcement saddles. These saddles are fillet welded over the actual pressure-retaining nozzle-to-shell weld. The configuration is shown on Figure 5.
i l
2
^
Category C-B, Item C1.2, requires a volumetric examination of two of these four nozzle-to-shell welds in the service lifetime of the unit. This requiremenc is impractical due to inaccessibility.
The following additional information is requested of CE:
(a) Does the design of the heat exchangers permit an internal inspection of these welds?
(b) If so, has an alternative internal examination been considered if and when a heat exchanger is opened for maintenance and/or repair?
(c) What is the anticipated frequency of maintenance for these heat exchangers?
6.
Exemption No. 5 - Chemistry Control - IWC-1220(c) (Ref.1, Pgs 2-5 thru 2-6)
Regarding exemption 5, the NRC does not accept the " chemistry control" provision of the S-75 addenda as a basis for exempting systems for inspection.
CE should develop an ISI program for the ECC, RHR, and CHR (containment heat removal) systems that complies with the intent of the S-79 addenda, in which the " chemistry control" provision has been deleted. A commitment to such a pro-gram, with any necessary relief requests for reasons other than chemistry control, should be provided in response to this inquiry.
7.
Program Interval (Ref. 1, Pg 1-1)
The Inservice Inspection Programs for Class 1, 2 and 3 Components are applicable for the 40-month period beginning October 18, 1979 and November 10, 1979 for Quad Cities 1 and 2, respectively.
Please explain how these dates are derived.* Based on dates of start of commercial operations, 8/72 and 10/72, respectively, the start of the third 40-month period would be 4/79 and 6/79, respectively for Units 1 and 2.
8.
Relief Request No. CR Calibration Blocks (Ref.1, Pgs 2-38 and 2-39)
Quad Cities Station currently utilizes some calibration blocks which lack documentation consistent with the requirements of current editions of the Code.
The Section XI requirements of the 1974 Edition of the ASME Code including the 1975 Addenda specify traceability of the calibration block material to a material specification.
Relief is requested from these documentation requirements to allow the continued use of the existing calibration blocks.
- In Reference 2 dated April 18, 1979, reference is made to a May 22, 1979 previous submittal (Reed to Case). The year of the May 22 reference is ob-viously a typographical error, but a search of NRC files has not located a May 22, 1976 document. A document of that date would have been within the required 30-day response period to initial NRC guidance (Ref. 3) in which licensees were requested to define their ISI program interval.
3 i
,.,.,,_,,._m.
._m~.
,,.m
-