ML20213E252
| ML20213E252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1982 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0542, CON-WNP-542 NUDOCS 8209150433 | |
| Download: ML20213E252 (5) | |
Text
l (h
/
SEPS 1982 Docket No. 50-397 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Materials & Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
WPPSS, Washington Nuclear Project No. 2, SSER Input Plant Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)
Suppliers:
General Electric; Burns & Roe Licensing Stage:
OL Docket Number:
50-397 Responsible Branch and Project Manager:
LB #1; R. Auluck Reviewer:
M. R. Hum, (B. Brown, INEL)
Requested Completion Date:
September 24, 1982 Description of Task:
Review of the Preservice and Inservice Inspection Programs Review Status:
(a) Preservice Inspection Program - Confirmatory Issue (b)
Inservice Inspection Program - Open Issue In accordance with a request from the Project Manager, the Inservice Inspection Section, Materials Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, has prepared the attached SSER input for Section 5.2.4 to reflect the current status of our review.
In my memorandum dated February 19, 1982 we determined that the applicant's Preservice Inspection (PSI) Program was acceptable contingent upon completion of the balance of the examina-tions and identifying all limitations to examination with a supporting technical justification.
The SSER input addresses two issues which are summarized as follows:
(1) Request for relief from PSI requirements.
In a letter dated January 28, 1982 the applicant requested relief from certain PSI requirements identified from examinations performed before 1982.
During a conference call on August 12, 1982, the applicant estimated that the PSI would be essentially complete by the end of the year and the balance of the relief requests would be submitted in February 1983.
Based on a construction complete date of September 1983, we plan to perform a detailed review after all relief requests are submitted with a supporting technical justification.
(2) Examination of the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) system:
In letters dated January 13, 1982, March 5, 1982 and April 22, 1982, the applicant outlined the position that the entire SDV system at N
Sgq2150433-820909' h ADOCK 05000397 4G-
Thomas M. Novak l SEP S 1982 and/or surface examination.WNP-2 should be excluded from prese rvice volumetric review based on the applicant's conclusion that a crack iThe appl capacity is available to mitigate the effects of a pip n the piping n makeup is the only plant under OL review that is not perfo eak.
WNP-2 in accordance with Section XI requirements as recom rming examinations NUREG-0803.
mended in Based on a general plant survey, the applicant estim t scram discharge header, instrument volume and associated a es that the contain between 100-150 tion requirements defined by Section XIwelds subject to ASME Code Class 2 pi examina-has already been installed on the SDV s.In addition, insulation have not been prepared for examination.ystem.The welds surfaces on August 12, 1982, the applicant has committed to provide d t ilDuring the c information in September 1982 concerning the numbe ea ed of the SDV system welds.
r and location make an evaluation of the inspection requirements and est blith position after the applicant provides sufficient info a
sh a complete the review.
rmation to William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials & Qualifications Engineerng 0' vision of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated DISTRIBUTION-cc:
R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut W. Johnston RE 1-1 WPPSS B. Youngblood C. Cheng W. Hazelton R. Klecker R. Auluck D. Heist, I&E, Region V B. Brown, INEL J. Cook, INEL i
T. Taylor, PNL ISI Section Members M. Hum
Contact:
M. Hum x-28118,
1, [
\\V /Yy DE:MTEB OE:.t4tEB DE:MTEB DE.AO:MQE MHum:js CYCheng WHaielton WJohnston j
9/3/82 9/. /82 9/ /82 9/ 7 /82
ATTACHMENT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH INSERVICE INSPECTION SECTION 5.2.4 Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Inservice Inspection and Testing This evaluation supplements our conclusions in this section of NUREG-0892.
Our initial evaluation addressed the following subjects:
A.
Compliance with the Standard Review Plan.
B.
Definition of examination requirements.
C.
Evaluation of compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Our initial evaluation determined that the Preservice Inspection Program through Amendment 3 dated December 30, 1981 was techni-cally acceptable.
The applicant has committed to identify all impractical ASME Code examination requirements with a support-ing technical justification.
In a letter dated January 28, 1982, the applicant identified certain ASME Code preservice examination requirements that he determined to be impractical and provided a supporting technical justification.
The preservice inspection of the reactor coolant pressure boundary is still being performed.
, The examinations are scheduled to be completed before the end of 1982.
The applicant expects that other ASME Code requirements may be determined to be impractical during the evaluation of the examination results.
After the pre-service inspection is essentially complete and the applicant provides a supporting technical justification, we will complete our evaluation of all requests for relief from the examination requirements which the applicant determines to be impractical in a future supplement to this SER.
The NRC established a postifon in NUREG-0803 " Generic Safety Evaluation Report Regarding Integrity of BWR Scram System 4
Piping" that licensees and applicants for BWR plants should perform periodic inservice inspection of the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) system which meets the requirements for Class 2 piping in Section XI of the ASME Code.
In letters dated January 13, 1982, March 5, 1982 and April 22,.1982, the applicant provided a response to Generic Letter 81-34 entitled " Safety Concerns Associated With Pipe Breaks In The BWR Scram System." The applicant takes the position that the SDV system should be excluded from preservice and inservice volumetric and/or surface examination because a crack in the piping system would result in control rod I
1 i
-~
s
,, insertion and sufficient makeup capacity is also avail-able to mitigate the effects of a pipe break.
The applicant has made a commitment to provide additional information concern-ing the SDV system in September 1982.
After the applicant
'~
provides a detailed technical justification, we will make an evaluation of the SDV system inspection requirements and report our conclusions in a future supplement to this SER.
I i
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - _