ML20137Z468
| ML20137Z468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1985 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Leddick R LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512110310 | |
| Download: ML20137Z468 (6) | |
Text
7..
DEC 3 5
Docket No.: 50-3d2 Mr. R.-S. Leddick Louisiana Power and Light Company 317 Baronne St., Mail Unit 17 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
Dear Mr. Leddick:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information on Waterford 3 Inservice Inspection Program The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) program for Waterford 3, which you submitted by letter dated May 28, 1985. identifies the information required to complete our review.
If you have any questions about resolution of this issue, contact the NRC Project Manager J. H. Wilson, (301) 492-7702.
Sincerely, udiGINAL SICfiED BY George W. Knighton, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 7 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION
- Docket Eilet50-382 %
NRC PDR LPDR NSIC EJordan PRC System ACRS(16)
LB#3 Rdg MHum JLee JWilson Attorney, ELD JPartlow BGrimes P ih [
PBD JWil t
Ittton 11/
85 11
/85 8512110310 851203 PDR ADOCK 05000382 G
~
Mr.-R. S. Leddick Louisiana Power & Light Company Waterford 3 cc:
W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Monroe & Leman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1432 Whitney Building Office of Executive Director New Orleans, Louisiana 70103 for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Mr. E. Blake Arlington, Texas 76011 Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Carole H. Burstein, Esq.
j Washington, D.C.
20036 445 Walnut Street "q
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Mr. Gary L. Groesch J1 P. O. Box 791169 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager
>i New Orleans, Louisiana 70179-1169 Washington Nuclear Operations j
Combustion Engineering Inc.
t Mr. F. J. Drummond 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1310 Project Manager - Nuclear Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Mr. K. W. Cook Nuclear Support and Licensing Manager Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS I
P. O. Box 822 Killona, Louisiana 70066 i
}
Mr. Jack Fager Middle South Services. Inc.
P. O. Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161
]
Chairman 1
Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 e
e j
ENCLOSURE 1 i
. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FIRST INTERVAL-INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM
.L Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 y
In a. letter dated May 28,1985,(1) from K. W. Cook (LP&L) to G. W.JKnighton
- (NRC), the licensee submitted a proposed inservice inspection (ISI) program for-the Waterford 3 first ten-year inspection interval. We will be using this submittal with the documents referenced in -it and other documents (see
attached document review list) to evaluate the ISI program and exemptions l,.
from examination defined in ASME Code Section XI.
If there are any additional j.
. relief requests or supporting information you wish to be considered, please
' provide copies of this information.
If they have been previously furnished-
. - [-
to the NRC, please document by reference.
The following questions address the ISI program and requests for relief I
from impractical Code requirements.
1.
Section 1.1 of the ISI program states that the examinations are implemented by outage plans which contain specific drawings, NDE procedures, calibration standa'rd information, and the minimum / maximum number of items to be examined per period. Sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0.and 5.0 of the ISI program list the -total number of Class 1, 2, and 3 welds and supports selected for examination per Item No.
Code Tables IWB-2412-1. IWC-2412-1, and IWD-2500-1, and Paragraph IWF-2410 define requirements for the percentage of examinations that can be completed for each of the three periods during the inspection interval. Tables i
IWB-2500-1, IWC-2500-1, IWD-2500-1, and IWF-2500-1 show the required extent and frequency of examination for each Item No; Table IWB-2500-1 also indicates.whether deferral of the examination (s) to the end of the 10-year
{
interval is pemissible. We cannot detemine the method of compliance with
!l these Code requirements from the available information.
t
(
h k{
~. ~.
, ~,... _.
The following information should be provided to establish the distribution of examinations by Item No.:
A). The plant zone drawings or examination isometric drawings for ASME Code Class 1 and 2 components.
~j B)
A list of the pressure boundary welds by system or component that have been selected for volumetric and/or surface examination a
during the interval.
i C)
A revision of the Examination Category tables showing the anticipated distribution of items per period. The licensee should discuss the method of establishing welds subject to examination, i.e., Examination Category C-A appears to include the shell circumferential welds from several different components.
If a single examination is required during the interval and if deferral to the end of the interval is not permissible, the anticipated percentage of the examination to be performed during each period should be shown.
l 2.
The 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda of the ASME Code requires that the ultrasonic examination calibration block standards conform to the current edition of Article 4 of Section V for Class 1 and 2 ferritic steel vessel welds greater than 2 inches in thickness and Appendix III of Section XI for Class 1 and 2 ferritic steel piping welds.
For all other welds, calibration block standards shall conform to Article 5 of Section V.
4 Section 1.11 of the ISI program states that the calibration standards used for the first ten-year interval were designed and manufactured to satisfy the intent of Article 5 of Section V and Appendix III of Section XI of the 1974 Edition of the ASME Code. The code of record is the 1980 Edition.
Winter 1981 Addenda, which has different calibration block requirements than the 1974 Code.
D-
\\ - -
e The licensee should provide a discussion of the~ method used to determine that the existing calibration blocks meet the requirements' of 80W81.
In addition, a technical justification should be provided to show that the examination,withtheexistingcalibrationblocks[will'provideresultsthat are equivalent or superior to the requiremen'ts of 80W81.
.j
'A 4'~
3.
Section 5.0 of the ISI program contains three tables that identiff the j
total number of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 supports subject to examination. These tables indicate the following; N
a Examination Category Total Supports
~
?)
F-A, Plate and Shell Type Supports 24 F-B, Linear Type Supports 0
F-C, Component Standard Supports 1,429
~
1
-\\
In order for the staff to evaluate the visual examination program for component supports, the licensee should indicate the approximate number of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 supports included in the to'als for each Examination Category. The licensee should provide a de cription of the methodology used to determine the total number of Code Class 1, 2, and 3
]
supports.
N
].
4.
Relief has been requested, ISI-001, from obtaining 1007, covetage
+
f when examining certain items scheduled in Tables IWB-2509-1 (Category B-J)
l' and IWC-2500-1 (Category C-F).
In those tables, notes l'(d) through 1(d),
for Examination Categories B-J and C-F define the criterla for selecting..
piping welds to be examined. Notes 1(a),1(b), and 1(c) allow no latitudd in selecting welds for examinations. However, noted (d) of both categories; s
allows the choice of additional welds to be examirikd up'to a required '
percentage. The limitations to examination should be considered in the selection of these welds to minimize the number of welds. requiring relief.
The piping welds selected for examination in the interval should e
s identified. For each weld with a limitation to examina1! ion, the following
. i.
. - information should be provided:
(1) identification of the specific weld, r
(2) the corresponding isometric drawing, (3) the required examination method, (4) the specific cause for the partial examination, (5) the region of the weld which can actually be examined, and (6) alternative examinations employed (if any).
y g
j 5.
Relief Request Numbers ISI-006 through ISI-010 request partial or complete b
relief from the visual (VT-3) examination requirements of Examination Category F-C that are inaccessible due to non-removable insulation, permanent fire i
seals or encapsulated in penetrations.
IWF-1300(e) permits the support boundary' to extend from the component insulation, where the support is buried in insulation and'the support either carries the weight of the component or serves as a structural restraint in compression. The staff cannot determine the 4
specific relationship between the subject requests for relief and the table on Examination Category F-C in Section 5.0 of the ISI program. To clarify this issue the licensee should address the following:
>r
'A)
Do the individual supports listed in ISI-006, ISI-007, ISI-009 and-
,M*
ISI-010 meet the requirements of IWF-1300(e)? Is the objective of
- l these relief requests to indicate that the specific Code require-l ments will be met and to document that the support boundary has been established at the component insulation or fire seal?
d L
B)
Does the ISI program include the examination of the portion of the supports indentified in 15I-006 through ISI-010' that are not nbstructed by non-removable insulation, permanent fire seals or encapsulated in penetrations?
[
C)
Are the pressure boundaries of the lines identified in 151-006 4
through 151-010 scheduled for hydrostatic tests based on IWA-5000?
References 1.
K. W. Cook (LP&L) to G. W. Knighton (NRC), Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 May 28, 1985.
s