ML20235N886
| ML20235N886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1989 |
| From: | Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Withers B WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-71596, NUDOCS 8903020017 | |
| Download: ML20235N886 (7) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
February 21, 1989 Docket No. 50-482 Mr. Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Post Office Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839
Dear Mr. Withers:
SUBJECT:
INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RELIEF REQUESTS NOS. IIR-18, IIR-19, IIR-20, IIR-21 & IIR-22 (TAC NO. 71596)
The Wolf Creek Inservice Inspection (ISI) program along with specific relief from ASME Section XI Code requirements was approved by letter from J. A. Calvo to B. D. Withers dated November 12, 1987.
In addition, the applicable regulation authorizes the staff to grant additional relief from Section XI of the ASME Code requirements upon making the necessary findings.
By letter dated December 21, 1988, you requested relief from additional examination requirements that have been determined to be impractical to perform at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
Following our review of your letter of December 21, 1988, we-have determined that the inspection requirements are impractical for the components for which reliefisbeinggrantedand,pursuantto10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(1),thatthe granting of relief is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.
In making this determination, we have given due consideration to the burden that could result if those requirements are imposed on your facility. This letter grants the relief.
Our evaluation is enclosed.
Sincerely,
/s/
h Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate. IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, So IV, V and Special Projects Q@
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation No
Enclosure:
sus As stated 20 cc w/ enclosure:
tg See next page ooQ DISTRIBUTION:
o c Docket: File.,
NRC/ Local PDRs PD4-4 Reading File
$g GHolahan (Ai: ting)
LRubenstein PNoonan g/%
~
go DPickett OGC (for information only)
Edorden BGrimes Cy Cheng/GJohnson f i ACRS (10)
Wolf Creek Gray File
- See previous concurrences:
I 0FC
- PD4-4:LA*
- PD4-4:PM*
- NRR:EMTB*
- 0GC p
- PD4-4:D f ___:.____..
NAME :PNoonan
- DPickett
- Cy Cheng
- JCalvo en :
DATE :01/25/89
- 01/25/89
- 01/26/89
- 01/t6/89
- 02/2J /89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
A
~
February 21, 1989 Docket No. 50 482 Mr. Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Post Office Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839
Dear Mr. Withers:
SUBJECT:
INSERVICE INSPECTION PP0 GRAM RELIEF REQUESTS N05. IIR-18 IIR.19, IIR-20, IIR.21 & IIR-22 (TAC NO. 71596)
The Wolf Creek Inservice Inspection (ISI) program along with specific relief from ASME Section XI Code requirements was approved by letter from J. A. Calvo to B. D. Withers dated November 12, 1987.
In addition, the applicable regulation authorizes the staff to grant additional relief from Section XI of the ASME Code requirements upon making the necessary findings. By letter dated December 21, 1988, you requested relief from additional examination requirements that have been determined to be impractical to perform at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
Following our review of your letter of December 21, 1988, we have determined that the inspection requirements are impractical for the components for which relief is being granted and, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1), that the granting of relief is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.
In making this determination, we have given due consideration to the burden that could result if those requirements are imposed on your facility. This letter grants the relief.
Our eva*pation is enclosed.
Sincerely,
/s/
Jose A. Calvo. Director Project Directorate. IV Division of Reactor Projects. III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC/ Local PDRs PD4 4 Reading File GHolahan (Acting)
LRubenstein PNoonan DPickett OGC (for information only)
EJordan BGrimes Cy Cheng/GJohnson ACRS (10)
Wolf Creek Gray File
- See previous concurrences:
I 0FC :PD4 4:LA*
- PD4 4:PM*
- NRR:EMTB*
- 0GC' p
- PD4-4:D f.....:.......
NAME :PNoonan
- DPickett
- Cy Cheng
- JCalvo p:
DATE :01/25/89
- 01/25/89
- 01/26/89
- 01/t6/89
- 02/3J /89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
A UNITED STATES
>+
[
e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,/
February 21, 1989 g
Docket No. 50-482 Mr. Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Post Office Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839
Dear Mr. Withers:
SUBJECT:
INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RELIEF REQUESTS NOS. IIR-18, IIR-19. IIR-20, IIR-21 & 11R-22 (TAC NO. 71596)
The Wolf Creek Inservice Inspection (ISI) program along with specific relief from ASME Section XI Code requirements was approved by letter from J. A. Calvo i
to B. D. Withers dated November 12, 1987. In addition, the applicable regulation authorizes the staff to grant additional relief from Section XI of the ASME Code requirements upon making the necessary findings. By letter dated December 21, 1988, you requested relief from additional examination requirements that have been determined to be impractical to perform at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
Following our review of your letter of December 21, 1938, we have determined that the inspection requirements are impractical for the components for which relief is being granted and, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1), that the granting of relief is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.
In making this determination, we have given due consideration to the burden that could result if those requirements are imposed on your facility. This letter grants the relief.
Our evaluation is enclosed.
Sincerely, D
~h k"V ft Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page I
l l
Mr. Bart D. Withers Wolf Creek Generating Station l
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Unit No. 1 l
~i I
cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Mr. Gerald Allen 1
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Public Health Physicist 1800 M Street, NW Bureau of Air Quality & Radiation i
Washington, D.C.
20036 Control Division of Environment i
Chris R. Rogers, P.E.
Kansas Department of Health l
Manager, Electric Department and Environment j
Public Service Comission Forbes Field Building 321 P. O. Box 360 Topeka, Kansas 66620 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 i
Mr. Gary Boyer, Plant Manager Regional Administrator, Region III Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 411 799 Roosevelt Road Burlington, Kansas 66839 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Regional Administrator, Region IV Senior Resident Inspector / Wolf Creek U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director P. O. Box 311 for Operations Burlington, Kansas 66839 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Robert Elliot, Chief Engineer Utilities Division.
Mr. Otto Maynard, Manager Licensing Kansas Corporation Commission Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
4th Floor - State Office Building P. O. Box 411 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1571 Burlington, Kansas 66839 l
j
Enclosure WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM RELIEF REQUESTS 11R-18, IIR-19, I1P.-20, IIR-21, AND IIR-22
Background
By letter dated December 21, 1988, the licensee submittal five relief requests from ASME Section XI requirements for the Wolf Creek Generating Station Inservice Inspection Program. These requests were made in accordance with 10CFR50.55a(g)(5)(iii).
i Licensee's Basis for Relief IIR-18, Reactor Vessel Supports J
The ASME Code requires a visual examination of the reactor vessel supports.
i Complete examination of these supports is hindered by high radiation, the insulation surrounding the. reactor pressure vessel and the surrounding concrete structure. The insulation which would have to be removed to permit a visual examination of these. supports was installed prior to setting the reactor pressure vessel. A-visual inspection of the shoe assembly and wear plate was performed.
No portion of the air cooled support box and attachment bolting to the structure was visible. Based upon the visual examinations which were able to be performed, there was no evidence of degradation which would indicate loss of integrity of the inaccessible portion of the supports.
There are insulated walk plates which could be removed in order to inspect a small purtion of the air cooled box, however, the radiation level in this area is greater than 1 R/hr.
It is e:timated that the removal and reinstallation of the walk plates and the actual inspection of accessible portion of the air cooled box would result in approximately 4 to 5 man-rem exposure. Therefore, relief is requested to perform only visible portions of the supports without removal of the walk plates and insulation.
11R-19, Pipe to Valve Weld on 10" Accumulator Inspection (TEPOIA and TEPOIB)
Tank Piping The ASME Code requires a complete volumetric examination of the weld.
The lower 33% of weld circumference cannot be ultrasonically examined using a longitudinal scan because of a welded energy absorbing support in the scanning area. A complete circumferential scan was performed. An acceptable PT was performed in accordance with Category B-J requirements.
The welds were fully examine 6 prior to installation of the supports. A-complete examination of the welds would require destruction (and then re-installation) of the welded energy absorbing support.
t
1' :
. \\
IIR-20, Pipe to Valve Weld on 12" Containment Spray Piping Although the ASME Section XI Code specifically exempts piping in the Containment Spray System, in accordance with the letter dated February 20, 1987, from J. A.
Bailey, WCNOC, to the NRC, and the subsequent approved ISI Program Plan, supplemental examinations are required. The weld selection on criteria for 1
these supplemental examinations was determined using guidance from Code Case N-408. Examination methods and acceptance criteria was in accordance with Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1, Item No. C5.21 which requires a 100% volumetric examination.
Weld geometry between the valve and pipe precludes examining 23% of the required vclume of the circumferential weld using a circumferential scan. A complete longitudinal scan was performed on the circumferential weld. A successful PT was performed in accordance with Category C-F requirements. The intersecting longitudinal weld downstream was successfully UT and PT examined in accordance with Category C-F requirements.
IIR-21, Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheels Regulatory Guide 1.14, Rev.1, requires volumetric examination of the areas of higher stress concentration at the bore and keyways.
Limitations were encountered in performing approximately 50% of the volumetric examination. Areas of bore and keyways were masked by rachet pawl obstructions and holes drilled in the Flywheel.
UT examination was performed from the outer circumference of the Flywheel. No indications were noted in the volume examined.
IIR-22, 2"x2"x3/4" Tee to 2" Pipe Weld on Chemical and Volume Control System Although the ASME Code Section XI does not require a volumetric examination of these welds, an augmented volumetric examination per NUREG-0800 is required.
A welded box hanger precludes examining 40% of the required volume using a longitudinal scan from one direction. A complete longitudinal scan was performed from the opposite direction. A complete circumferential scan was also performed. An acceptable PT was performed as required by the approved ISI Program Plan.
The examination of this item was successfully completed during the Baseline Inspections. Subsequent to those examinations, the hanger was installed. A complete examination of the weld would require destruction (and re-installation) of the welded box hanger.
Evaluation The staff has reviewed each of the licensee's relief requests contained in the attachment to the December 21, 1988 letter. While the licensee did not propose any alternative examinations, the staff is satisfied that the ASME Code required examin6tions were performed to the maximum extent practical. With the exception of the reactor vessel supports, the remaining examinations were curtailed due e
l
't l !
l-to physical limitations. The staff does not consider it practical to remove permanently installed (i.e., welded) components for the purpose of ISI.
Regarding the reactor vessel supports, perscnnel dose considerations prevent the practicality of completing the examinations as required.
The staff notes that the examinations that were performed did not show any signs of degradation. This would indicate that there is no apparent loss of system or component integrity.
Based on our review we have determined that the inspection requirements are impractical for the com to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ponents for which relief is being granted and, pursuant 1), the granting of relief is acceptable.
j i
)
i l
I l
1
.)