ML20052C683
| ML20052C683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1982 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Latoya Sinclair POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205050381 | |
| Download: ML20052C683 (8) | |
Text
'
4" DISTRIBUTION:
L PDR IE Docket File ORB #2 Rdg ACRS-10 NRC PDR DEisenhut Gray File SNorris Docket !!o. 50-333 PPolk OELD APR 14 1982 AE0D lir. Leruy W. Sinclair President and Chief Operating Officer W
s Power Authority of the State of New York
//
10 Columbus Circle t
Iksi York, New York 10019 RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
2 APR 2019825
/
6-cama m
Subject:
Inservice Inspection Progran
"*p m e
Re:
James A. FitzPatrick fluclear Power Plant e
N c)
Reference is made to your letter of Septerter 10, 1979 in which yo su -
nitted inservice inspection program relief requests for the FitzPatrick thclear Station. We have completed our initial review and have detemined that we need additional infomation. This infomation is discussed in the enclosure to this letter and your response is requested within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
The request for infomation contained in this letter affects fewer than ten respondents; therefore, DiB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, CalG1EAL SIGED B'I Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page fY Ab ORB #2:DL ORB #2:DL
- -0K8 #2:DL
" NM "... NiiIil/c5E"... 55ss A So. "...".
sua-r >
4 4/d/82 4/N/82,_,,_,
,_./l4/82 o,,,,
8205050381 820414 D( PDR ADOCK 05000 3
OFFICIAL RECO
,,,-32suo Nac rosu sta tio-so3 Nacu o24a
J
_V T
Mr. Leroy W. Sinclair cc:
Mr. George M. Wilverding, Chairman Mr. Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel Safety Review Committee Power Authority of the State Power Authority of the State of New York of New York 10 Columbus Circle 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 New York, New York 10019 Mr. J. Phillip Bayne Mr. M. C. Cosgrove Senior Vice President -
Quality Assurance Superintendent Nuclear Generation James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Power Authority of the State P.O. Box 41 of New York 10 Columbus Circle Lycoming, New York 13093 New York, New York 10019 Ronald C. Haynes Mr. Corbin A. McNeill, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region I Resident Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 631 Park Avenue Power Plant King of Prussia, PA 19406 P. O. Cox 41 Lyconing, New York 13093 Resident Inspector Director, Technical Development c/o U.S. NRC Programs P. O. Box 136 State of New York Energy Office Lycoming, New York 13093 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Leon Guaquil Manager - Nuclear Licensing Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 State University College at Oswego Penfield Library - Documents Oswego, New York 13126 l
Mr. A. Klausmann l
Vice President-Quality Assurance l
Power Authority of the State l
of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019
. Enclosure ",'
~
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL'INFORMATION INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM FitzPatrick I.
GENERAL 1.
Under the change in regulation 10 CFR 50.55a effective November 1,1979, your ISI program, when finally approved, will cover the last 80 months of your current 10-year inspection interval, i.e., from November 1978 to July 1985.
Does this result in any changes you wish to make in your relief requests? Do you require other ISI relief?
2.
Many cf the request fEr. relief from ISI examination, requirements submitted by PASNY have not been supported by adequate, descriptive and detailed technical
~
information. This detailed information.is necessary to:
(1) document the impracticality ef.the ASME Code requiremhnts within the limitation of design, geometry and mate'ritis of constructior. of components; and.(2) determine whether the use of alternafives will provide an, acceptable level of. quality. and safety.
Relief request submitted with a justification such as " impractical,"
" inaccessible," or any other categorical basis, require additional information to permit the staff to make an evaluation of that relief request.
II.
Relief Requests From the September 10, 1979, ISI Proaram 1.
Relief Request:
I' tem Sl.ll, B-G-2, Reactor Vessel, Pressure Retaining
~
Bolts, page A-1-3 and Note 9, page A-1-ll Note 9 s.tates that visual examination will be performed only when the equipment is disassembled for maintenance overhaul. Accessibility is provided byremovalofinsulgtion.
The following additional information is requested:
[
(a) Are you asking for relief from the code requirements?
(b) Provide more detailed justification why examining 10(
of the bolts, studs and nuts during each. inspection interval is impractical.
A
s
.d
~*
page 2 (c) Please list the specific items under question.
2.
Relief Request:
Bl.18, D-0, Control Rod Drive Housings, page A-1-4 and Note 12, page A-1-11 Relief is requested from the code for examination of the stuc tube to control rod drive housing peripheral welds because the welds are inaccessible cue to structural interferences and car.not be surface or volumetrically examined.
The following additional information is requested:
(a) Please provide a sketch and/or other information to support the. claim of inaccessibility.
(b) This examination requirement could be exempt under IWB-1220(b)(1) if you can show tnat under the postulated conditions of loss of coolant from the component (for which exemption is claimed) during normal reactor operations, the reactor can be shut down and cooled down in an orderly manner assuming makeup is provided by 'the reactor coolant makeup system only, and the makeup system is using onsite power.
f 3.
Relief Request B4.12, B-G-2, Pressure Retaining Bolting, page A-1-6 and Note 14, page A-1-12 Relief from the code requirements for visual examination of relief valve, RHR system, and the recirculation system decontamination flange bolting. Re-quirement is for 100% examination each interval, but request is to examine RHR relief valve and RHR system flange bolting during disassembly for mainte-nance, and the recirculation system decontamination flange bolting whenever the flange is removed. The note also says that examination need not be. con-ducted more frequently than every 10 years.
The following additional information is requested.
(a) Please clarify the intent of this request. Does PASNY intend to examine relief valve, RHR system and recirculation system flange
page 3 bolting at least once every 10 years or only when the tolting is disassembled for maintenance?
(b) How often do you expect these flange bolts to be disassembled?
4.
Relief Request B5.7, B-L-2, Internal Surfaces of Recirculation Pumps page A-1-7 and Note 16, page A-1-12 Relief is requested from the code requirements for visual examination of the internal surfaces of the recirculation pumps.
Examination will be made only when the recirculation pumps are disassembled for other reasons.
Please supply the following additional information:
(a)
Provide more detailed justification why this examination is imprac-tical and relief is requested.
.(b) Has ultrasonic wall thickness measurement been considered as an alternate examination?
(c) What are the manufacturer's recommendations regarding the disassembly of the pumps for regular maintenance?
I (d) Based on the industry experience with the pumps, what is the likeli-hood that the FitzPatrick plant unit operate 10 years without at least one pump being disassembled for maintenance?
i 5.
Relief Request B5.9, B-G-2, Pump Boundary Bolting, page A-1-8 and Ncts 17, page A-1-12 i
Relief is requested from the code requirements since PASNY plans to only perform visual examinations of the recirculation pump mechanical scal bolting when disassembled for maintenance.
Note 17 also states that " examinations need not be conducted more frequently than every 10 years."
sshe following additional information is requested:
(a) Please clarify this relief request.
Does PASNY intend to perform the code required examinations even if the' pump bciting does not
'have to be removed for maintena'nce?'
i l
page 4 (b)
If not, what is the basis and justification for'this r'elief request?
6.
Relief Requests B6.7 and B6.9, B-M-2 and B-G-2, Valve Bodies and Bolting
, ages A-1-8 and A-1-9, Notes.18 and 19, page A-1-12.
p Relief is requested from the code requirements since PASNY plans to only perform visual. examinations of the internal surfaces of valves and the valve bolting when they are disassembled for other reasons.
Notes 18 and 19 also state that " Examinations need not be conducted more frequently than every 10 years."
The foll,owing additional information is requested:
(a)
Please clarify this relief request.
Does.PASNY intend to perform
'the code-required examinations even if the valves do not have to be disassembled for maintenance?
(b)
If not, what is the basis and justification for this relief request?
(c)
Has ultrasonic wall thickness measurement been considere.d as an alternate examination on valve body surfaces?
7.
Relief Request:
Code Exemption under-Paragraph IWB-1220(b)(1) Table B-1, Code. Exemption Identifier E2, page El l
The licensee plans to exempt certain piping welds from code examination recuirements as allowed under certain conditions by IWB-1220(b)(1). Welds ext ;;ed are in the reactor core isolation cooling lines (page B-22) and the control rod drive return (page B-37).
The following additional information is requested:
(a)
Please either provide or reference (if previously submitted) sup-porting documentation that, pursuant to IWB-1220(b), shows tnat under the postulated conditions of loss of coolant from the compo-nent (for v.hich exemption is claimed) during normal reactor operations, the reactor can be shut down and cooled down in an orderly manner assuming makeup is provided by the reactor coolant makeup system only, and the makeup system is using onsite power.
k
page 5 8.
Generic Relief Request Identifier R1 and R6, pages B-2 and 3-4 The licensee is requesting relief to perform surface instead of volumetric examinations on certain Class 2 and Class 1 components, connections, piping, and associated valves, and vessels that are 0.5 inch and 0.375 inch nominal wall thickness or less. Basis for the request is claim that volumetric examinations i
of thin wall pipe does not produce reliable results.
1
{
The following additional information is requested:
(a)
Please provide additional technical documentation and information to justify the 0.5 inch and 0.375 inch wall thickness limits for Class 2 and Class 1 pipe welds.
(b)
If results are not reliable for material 1.ess.than 0.5 inch as claimed in R1, what is the basis for the statement in. R6?
, (c)
Please note 10 CFR 50.55a, subparagraphs (b)(2) and (g)(4).
9.
Generic Relief Request R3, page. B-3 Relief is requested for a number of component welds whose physical location i
within the plant restricts access to weld due to such factors as:
being..loca ted within a wall sleeve or penetration, in a high radiation area, very high in a l
room, adjacent to a wall or other restriction without sufficient clearance to perform examinations. Specific justification is provided for some of the weld examinations for which code relief is requested by notes in Table B-4.
i Tne folicwinc additional infornation is requested:
l l
(a)
For the circumferential welds located inside containment penetrations I
which are inaccessible for volumetric or surface examina. tion, will the nearby welds (the lower welds in Figure 1.1, page 6) be examined I
volumetrically over 100% of their length?
(b)
Describe the leak detection systems that would serve, and their prox-imity to, the areas in which the inaccessible welds in the containment pentrations are located.
(c)
Please provide a drawing or figure'more detailed than Figure 1.1 i
.-.n
-.~,,
-e,
t,.
page 6 that describes the welds that will be examined.
~(d)
Please provide the code category for the welds for which code relief is requested.
fe)
Do any of these welds involve the welding of dissimilar metals?
10.
Generic Relief Request R4, page B-3 The licensee is requesting relief to perform surface instead of volumetric examinations on certain branch pipe to pipe welded joints that are Class 1 and greater than 6 inches in diameter or are Class 2.
Please provide the following additional information:
(a) provide additional technical information, including sketches if necessary, to justify this relief request.
(b) Will these welds be ultrasonically tested to the extent practical?
9 e
_-