ML20059A898

Forwards RAI to Licensee Re Interval Inservice Program for Third Insp Interval from 931228 to 201228.NRC Wants Response to This RAI within Sixty Days of Receipt

ML20059A898
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	10/20/1993
From:	Trottier E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Frizzle C Maine Yankee
References
TAC-M85887, NUDOCS 9310270204
Download: ML20059A898 (6)

Text

l October 20, 1993 Dc,cket No. 50-309

\\.

c 1

Mr. Charles D. Frizzle, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION--MAINE YANKEE THIRD 10-YEAR INTERVAL IN5ERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN (TAC NO M85887)

The staff has reviewed the Maine Yankee Inservice Inspection Program for the Third Inspection Interval (December 28, 1992 to December 28, 2002), which you provided as Attachment A to your letter of transmittal dated February 2,1993.

i Based on its review, the staff has prepared the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). We would appreciate a response to this RAI 1

within sixty days of receipt.

Staff review of your Inservice Testing Program for the Third Inspection Interval, which you provided as Attachment B to the above referenced transmittal letter, continues.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on either your Inservice Inspection or Inservice Testing Program reviews.

l t

The requirements of this' letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and therefore are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget Review under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original signed by-Edouard H. Trottier', Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Project Directorate - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

WButler 1

' Docket File Stittle I

NRC & Local PDRs EHTrottier PDI-3 Reading OGC SVArga ACRS (10) ggg j

JCalvo JLinville, RI 1

0FFICE-PDI-):b PDI-3:Pd PDI-3:D n

NAME-SLMe-Ear #64r:dt WButier #P

j DATE-10 /2Q93 IB M /93 (O /2Q93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME

A:\\ MYM85887.ISI PDR ADOCK 05000309 R88REMfdTHEDBP 4 ~,1 mD.

c. 9 9310270204 931020

s 4

p '"' %,

O Y

f.

t UNITED STATES

[

11.2 j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E0001 October 20. 1993 Docket No. 50-309 Mr. Charles D. Frizzle, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION--MAINE YANKEE THIRD 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN (TAC NO. M85887)

The staff has reviewed the Maine Yankee Inservice Inspection Program for the Third Inspection Interval (December 28, 1992 to December 28, 2002), which you provided as Attachment A to your letter of transmittal dated February 2, 1993.

Based on its review, the staff has prepared the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). We would appreciate a response to this RAI within sixty days of receipt.

Staff review of your Inservice Testing Program for the Third Inspection Interval, which you provided as Attachment B to the above referenced transmittal letter, continues.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on either your Inservice Inspection or Inservice Testing Program reviews.

The requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and therefore are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget Review under P.L.96-511.

Since f

S^

Edouard H. Trottier, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Project Directorate - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

+

Y' Mr. Charles D. Frizzle Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station cc:

Mr. Char'es B. Brinkman Mr.. James R. Hebert, Manager Manager - Nashington Nuclear Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Ope a !c.s Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Augusta, Maine 04336 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Robert W. Blackmore Thomas G. Dignan Jr., Esquire Plant Manager Ropes & Gray One International Place Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company P.O. Box 408 Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. Uldis Vanags Mr. G. D. Whittier, Vice President State Nuclear Safety Advisor Licensing and Engineering State Planning Office Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company State House Station #38 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04333 Augusta, Maine 04336 Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager Mr. Patrick J. Dostie Yankee Atomic Electric Company 580 Main Street State of Maine Nuclear Safety Inspector Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 408 Regional Administrator, Region I Wiscasset, Maine 04578 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 First Selectman of Wiscasset Municipal Building U.S. Route 1 i

Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. J. T. Yerokun Senior Resident Inspector Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

P. O. Box E Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. Graham M. Leitch Vice President, Operations Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company P.O. Box 408 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 i

f Enclosure-

.t MAINE YANKEE THIRD 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RE00EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A.

Provide a list of the ultrasonic calibration standards to be used during the third 10-year interval inservice inspection (ISI) at Maine Yankee.

The list should include the calibration standard identifications, material specificationr, and sizes.

B.

Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(iv) requires that appropriate ASME Code Class 2 piping welds in the residual heat removal (RHR), emergency core cooling (ECC), and containment heat removal (CHR) systems be examined.

Piping welds in these systems may not be completely exempted from inservice volumetric examination, based on Section XI exclusion criteria contained in Table IWC-2500-1.

In the review of Class 2 piping welds selected for examination, the staff noted that a significant number of welds in the RHR, ECC, and CHR are excluded from examination, based on wall thickness.

For example, all

}

welds of the containment spray system on the discharge side of the g

containment spray pumps have been excluded from examination.

Because the containment spray system piping on the discharge side of the pumps is a critical part of the system and is relied on to function during emergency conditions, it is appropriate to select welds from this portion of the system and perform volumetric examinations of those welds to verify system integrity. Maine Yankee should review the examination areas scheduled for the subject systems and select welds appropriate to the system.

The staff has previously determined that a 7.5% augmented volumetric sample constitutes an acceptable resolution at similar plants. The ISI Program Plans for these systems should be revised to include volumetric examination of a representative sample of piping welds with nominal wall thicknesses less than three eighths inch.

Provide a list of piping welds selected to satisfy these augmented examinations.

C.

Section 5.2.9.2, " System Summary," Examination Category B-J, describes the extent of examination for applicable welds of each Class I system.

It appears that, by the method used for determining the extent of examination, the number of welds scheduled for examination is less than l

the minimum number required by the Code.

It appears that Maine Yankee is taking credit for examinations required by Examination Category B-F in the total weld count for Examination Category B-J welds.

This approach is unacceptable to the staff.

It is the staff's position that each examination category, as assigned, stands alone, and that the extent of examination requirements is to be applied independent of other examination categories without duplication of examination area selection.

Please provide a revised system summary that reflects an appropriate sample of Examination Category B-J welds.

Y

r^;

r 1

s D.

Under Section 5.2.1.4, " Category Summary," Examination Category B-A, it appears that the scheduling of examinations under Item Numbers Bl.21 (circumferential head welds) and B1.22 (meridional head welds) is limited to the reactor vessel lower head. The Code requires selection of examination areas from both the reactor vessel lower head and the closure head.

Please revise the category summary and program table to appropriately reflect the total welds scheduled, or provide technical justification for not doing so.

E.

With regards to the requests for reiief associated with limitations due to metallurgical properties of cast stainless steel, the staff continues to monitor the development of new or improved examination techniques.

As improvements in these areas are achieved, the staff is requiring that these new techniques be made part of the ISI examination procedures. Many utilities are applying state-of-the-art examination techniques for the examination of materials that were previously believed to be incompatible with ultrasonic examinations. Discuss any volumetric examination techniques that you have reviewed and that may be applied for the examination of cast stainless steel. Discuss your implementation of advanced examination techniques to obtain a best-effort examination of the subject material.

F.

Relief Request RR-08: subarticle IWA-5240, Visual Examination.

In conjunction with tests performed in accordance with Examination Categories B-P, C-H, D-B, and D-C, subarticle IWA-5240 requires the removal of insulation in borated systems at bolted connections when performing VT-2 visual examination during system leakage tests and system hydrostatic tests.

You state that: (1) if there is evidence of leakage through insulation at pressure-retaining bolted connections comprised of stainless steel bolting, the insulation will be removed and the leakage and bolting evaluated by the Plant Engineering Department (PED) to determine the appropriate corrective action, and (2) insulation will be removed and a direct visual inspection for evidence of leakage at pressure-retaining bolting will be performed at the required frequency; however, the system / component may not be at pressure.

It is the position of the staff that the proposed alternative examination for borated, insulated systems is acceptable provided that the minimus hold time for pressure tests is 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and the VT-2 visual examination is performed at test pressure.

Please confirm that the required visual examination will be performed after a 4-hour hold at test pressure.

In addition, confirm that as part of the bolting evaluation where leakage occurs, the Code required removal of bolting and VT-3 visual examination will be performed. The staff has previously determined that the requirements of later Codes (1990 Addenda and 1992 Edition) provide an acceptable alternative for bolting evaluation.

win r

i i '

b G.

Verify that there are no additional relief requests, other than i

those submitted.

If additional relief requests are required, please submit them for staff review at your earliest convenience.

t a

i

.I i

?

[

t i

i r

I L