ML102860083: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML102860083
| number = ML102860083
| issue date = 10/22/2010
| issue date = 10/22/2010
| title = Request for Additional Information, Fourth 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program (TAC Nos. ME4218 and ME4219)
| title = Request for Additional Information, Fourth 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program
| author name = Martin R
| author name = Martin R
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-1
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-1
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 22, 2010 Mr. M. J. Ajluni Nuclear Licensing Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 40 Inverness Center Parkway P.O. Box 1295 Bin -038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), FOURTH 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NOS. ME4218AND ME4219)  
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 22, 2010 Mr. M. J. Ajluni Nuclear Licensing Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
40 Inverness Center Parkway P.O. Box 1295 Bin - 038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
 
==SUBJECT:==
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), FOURTH 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NOS. ME4218AND ME4219)


==Dear Mr. Ajluni:==
==Dear Mr. Ajluni:==
By letter dated July 8, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, Accession No. ML101890572), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted relief requests for the Fourth 10-Year Intervallnservice Inspection Program. Responses to the enclosed RAI are needed for us to continue our review. These RAls result from a review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11.
 
RAls for ISI-RR-02, ISI-RR-06 and ISI-RR-07 were issued by previous correspondence.
By letter dated July 8, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, Accession No. ML101890572), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted relief requests for the Fourth 10-Year Intervallnservice Inspection Program. Responses to the enclosed RAI are needed for us to continue our review. These RAls result from a review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11. RAls for ISI-RR-02, ISI-RR-06 and ISI-RR-07 were issued by previous correspondence.
Please provide a response within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of this letter. Sincerely, E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366  
Please provide a response within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
                                            /Z£J/Jlc~
                                            ~obert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366


==Enclosure:==
==Enclosure:==


RAI cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOURTH 10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION (lSI) INTERVAL RELIEF REQUESTS ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, ISI-RR-11 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT -UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 TAC NOS. ME4218 AND ME4219 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, in its letter dated July 8, 2010, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101890572), and has determined that additional information is necessary to continue the review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11.
RAI cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv
For each of the requests listed above, please address the following generic questions: Were Appendix VIII qualified procedures, personnel and equipment used? If so, what American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code edition was used for these Appendix VIII examinations? Fully clarify the wave modality and insonification angles for all ultrasonic (UT) examinations (e.g., in ISI-RR-03, what UT angles and wave modes were used for the axial flaw coverage). Were any indications identified as a result of the Code-required exams? If so, how were these indications dispositioned? What system(s) are each of these welds located in? ISI-RR-03 ISI-RR-03 states that ASME Code Case N-663 was applicable to the components in this relief request. Code Case N-663 states that "in lieu of the surface examination requirements for piping welds of Examination Category B-F (NPS 4 and larger), B-J (NPS 4 and larger), C-F-1, and C-F-2, surface examinations may be limited to areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack." However, this relief request does not indicate if there were any areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack. If so, please identify and describe any surface exams that were conducted for these welds, and what the results of the examinations were. Enclosure 
-2 ISI-RR-04 Please provide a more legible copy of Figure 1 on pages 4 of 5. Relief request RR-47, dated July 10,2006, reports 75% coverage on this same weld when it was examined prior to the implementation of Appendix VIII and the Performance Demonstration Initiative (POI) Program. The total coverage for this weld exam included examination from the Inconel side of the weld, through the weld overlay. Specifically, the examination through the weld overlay was performed using an automated system utilizing a 60-degree refracted longitudinal wave search unit. No limitations due to the overlay were noted in the relief request. Additionally, no unacceptable indications in the weld were reported.
In light of the apparent successful examination of the required weld volume (lower 1/3T) through the weld overlay in the 3 fd 10-Year lSI interval, please justify the omission of this (supplemental) exam for the 4 th 10-year lSI interval.
The NRC understands that there are currently no POI-qualified techniques to perform the examination of the lower 1/3T through a weld overlay. Please explain why the weld overlay does not cover weld 2821-'1 FW-12AA-8.
ISI-RR-05 Please confirm that the dimensions shown under Figure 1 on page 3 of 3 are correct (i.e., is the Code-required volume = 0.2 sq. inches as indicated). This relief request notes that "scans for axial flaws were not required for this carbon steel weld." Please confirm that no longitudinal weld intersects this circumferential weld, and how this was determined.
ISI-RR-08
-No additional RAls. ISI-RR-09
-No additional RAls. ISI-RR-10
-No additional RAls ISI-RR-11 Prior to the implementation of POI examinations, greater coverage (82%) was reported on weld 2G31-1RWCUM-6-0-16 in relief request RR-56 dated July 10, 2006. Please explain why it was possible to achieve 100% coverage for axial indications in the 3 fd lSI interval and only 50% in the 4 th interval.
Additionally, it appears that it was possible to achieve some coverage from the taper side of the weld for circumferential indications in the prior interval.
Why was that not achieved in this interval?
If POI-qualified examinations were not possible on the taper side, were non-POI exams possible with results reported as supplemental information? In light of the above, please address each of the other 3 welds listed in ISI-RR-11 in terms of whether it is possible to achieve greater coverage in the 4 th lSI interval, even if the technique used is non-POI-qualified and only reported as supplemental information. 
-3For welds 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-15, 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-16, and 2G31-1RWCUM-6-D-17, please explain why refracted longitudinal waves were not used for the examination.
October 22, 2010 Mr. M. J. Ajluni Nuclear Licensing Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 40 Inverness Center Parkway P.O. Box 1295 Bin -038 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), FOURTH 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NOS. ME4218 AND ME4219)


==Dear Mr. Ajluni:==
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOURTH 10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION (lSI) INTERVAL RELIEF REQUESTS ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, ISI-RR-11 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 TAC NOS. ME4218 AND ME4219 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, in its letter dated July 8, 2010, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101890572), and has determined that additional information is necessary to continue the review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11.
By letter dated July 8, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, Accession No. ML101890572), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted relief requests for the Fourth 10-Year Intervallnservice Inspection Program. Responses to the enclosed RAI are needed for us to continue our review. These RAls result from a review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11.
For each of the requests listed above, please address the following generic questions:
RAls for ISI-RR-02, ISI-RR-06 and ISI-RR-07 were issued by previous correspondence.
: 1. Were Appendix VIII qualified procedures, personnel and equipment used? If so, what American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code edition was used for these Appendix VIII examinations?
Please provide a response within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of this letter. Sincerely, IRA! Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
: 2. Fully clarify the wave modality and insonification angles for all ultrasonic (UT) examinations (e.g., in ISI-RR-03, what UT angles and wave modes were used for the axial flaw coverage).
: 3. Were any indications identified as a result of the Code-required exams? If so, how were these indications dispositioned?
: 4. What system(s) are each of these welds located in?
ISI-RR-03
: 1. ISI-RR-03 states that ASME Code Case N-663 was applicable to the components in this relief request. Code Case N-663 states that "in lieu of the surface examination requirements for piping welds of Examination Category B-F (NPS 4 and larger), B-J (NPS 4 and larger), C-F-1, and C-F-2, surface examinations may be limited to areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack." However, this relief request does not indicate if there were any areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack. If so, please identify and describe any surface exams that were conducted for these welds, and what the results of the examinations were.
Enclosure
 
                                                  -2 ISI-RR-04
: 1. Please provide a more legible copy of Figure 1 on pages 4 of 5.
: 2. Relief request RR-47, dated July 10,2006, reports 75% coverage on this same weld when it was examined prior to the implementation of Appendix VIII and the Performance Demonstration Initiative (POI) Program. The total coverage for this weld exam included examination from the Inconel side of the weld, through the weld overlay. Specifically, the examination through the weld overlay was performed using an automated system utilizing a 60-degree refracted longitudinal wave search unit. No limitations due to the overlay were noted in the relief request. Additionally, no unacceptable indications in the weld were reported. In light of the apparent successful examination of the required weld volume (lower 1/3T) through the weld overlay in the 3fd 10-Year lSI interval, please justify the omission of this (supplemental) exam for the 4th 10-year lSI interval. The NRC understands that there are currently no POI-qualified techniques to perform the examination of the lower 1/3T through a weld overlay.
: 3. Please explain why the weld overlay does not cover weld 2821-'1 FW-12AA-8.
ISI-RR-05
: 1. Please confirm that the dimensions shown under Figure 1 on page 3 of 3 are correct (i.e., is the Code-required volume = 0.2 sq. inches as indicated).
: 2. This relief request notes that "scans for axial flaws were not required for this carbon steel weld." Please confirm that no longitudinal weld intersects this circumferential weld, and how this was determined.
ISI-RR No additional RAls.
ISI-RR No additional RAls.
ISI-RR No additional RAls ISI-RR-11
: 1. Prior to the implementation of POI examinations, greater coverage (82%) was reported on weld 2G31-1RWCUM-6-0-16 in relief request RR-56 dated July 10, 2006. Please explain why it was possible to achieve 100% coverage for axial indications in the 3fd lSI interval and only 50% in the 4 th interval. Additionally, it appears that it was possible to achieve some coverage from the taper side of the weld for circumferential indications in the prior interval. Why was that not achieved in this interval? If POI-qualified examinations were not possible on the taper side, were non-POI exams possible with results reported as supplemental information?
: 2. In light of the above, please address each of the other 3 welds listed in ISI-RR-11 in th terms of whether it is possible to achieve greater coverage in the 4 lSI interval, even if the technique used is non-POI-qualified and only reported as supplemental information.


==Enclosure:==
                                    -3
: 3. For welds 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-15, 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-16, and 2G31-1RWCUM-6-D-17, please explain why refracted longitudinal waves were not used for the examination.


RAI cc wi encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
" ML102860083
Public RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource LPL2-1 RlF RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR RidsNrrPMHatch Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl2-1 Resource RidsNrrLASRohrer Resource SSheng, NRR RidsNrrDciCvib Resource CNove, NRR ADAMS Accession No" ML102860083  
                                                                                *via e-mail OFFICE                 NRRlLPL2-1/PM     NRRlLPL2-1/LA     NRRlCVIB/BC       NRRlLPL2-1/BC     NRRlLPL2-1/PM NAME                   RMartin           SRohrer           TLupold*         GKulesa             RMartin (KCotton for)
"" *via e-mail OFFICE NRRlLPL2-1/PM NRRlLPL2-1/LA NRRlCVIB/BC NRRlLPL2-1/BC NRRlLPL2-1/PM NAME RMartin SRohrer TLupold* GKulesa (KCotton for) RMartin DATE 10/22/10 10/18/10 10/1/10 10/22/10 10/22/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY}}
DATE                   10/22/10         10/18/10           10/1/10           10/22/10           10/22/10}}

Latest revision as of 14:10, 21 March 2020

Request for Additional Information, Fourth 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program
ML102860083
Person / Time
Site: Hatch  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 10/22/2010
From: Martin R
Plant Licensing Branch II
To: Ajluni M
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
Martin R, NRR/DORL, 415-1493
References
TAC ME4218, TAC ME4219
Download: ML102860083 (5)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 22, 2010 Mr. M. J. Ajluni Nuclear Licensing Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

40 Inverness Center Parkway P.O. Box 1295 Bin - 038 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295

SUBJECT:

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI), FOURTH 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NOS. ME4218AND ME4219)

Dear Mr. Ajluni:

By letter dated July 8, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, Accession No. ML101890572), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., submitted relief requests for the Fourth 10-Year Intervallnservice Inspection Program. Responses to the enclosed RAI are needed for us to continue our review. These RAls result from a review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11. RAls for ISI-RR-02, ISI-RR-06 and ISI-RR-07 were issued by previous correspondence.

Please provide a response within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/Z£J/Jlc~

~obert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOURTH 10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION (lSI) INTERVAL RELIEF REQUESTS ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, ISI-RR-11 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 TAC NOS. ME4218 AND ME4219 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, in its letter dated July 8, 2010, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101890572), and has determined that additional information is necessary to continue the review of relief requests ISI-RR-03, ISI-RR-04, ISI-RR-05, ISI-RR-08, ISI-RR-09, ISI-RR-10, and ISI-RR-11.

For each of the requests listed above, please address the following generic questions:

1. Were Appendix VIII qualified procedures, personnel and equipment used? If so, what American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code edition was used for these Appendix VIII examinations?
2. Fully clarify the wave modality and insonification angles for all ultrasonic (UT) examinations (e.g., in ISI-RR-03, what UT angles and wave modes were used for the axial flaw coverage).
3. Were any indications identified as a result of the Code-required exams? If so, how were these indications dispositioned?
4. What system(s) are each of these welds located in?

ISI-RR-03

1. ISI-RR-03 states that ASME Code Case N-663 was applicable to the components in this relief request. Code Case N-663 states that "in lieu of the surface examination requirements for piping welds of Examination Category B-F (NPS 4 and larger), B-J (NPS 4 and larger), C-F-1, and C-F-2, surface examinations may be limited to areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack." However, this relief request does not indicate if there were any areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack. If so, please identify and describe any surface exams that were conducted for these welds, and what the results of the examinations were.

Enclosure

-2 ISI-RR-04

1. Please provide a more legible copy of Figure 1 on pages 4 of 5.
2. Relief request RR-47, dated July 10,2006, reports 75% coverage on this same weld when it was examined prior to the implementation of Appendix VIII and the Performance Demonstration Initiative (POI) Program. The total coverage for this weld exam included examination from the Inconel side of the weld, through the weld overlay. Specifically, the examination through the weld overlay was performed using an automated system utilizing a 60-degree refracted longitudinal wave search unit. No limitations due to the overlay were noted in the relief request. Additionally, no unacceptable indications in the weld were reported. In light of the apparent successful examination of the required weld volume (lower 1/3T) through the weld overlay in the 3fd 10-Year lSI interval, please justify the omission of this (supplemental) exam for the 4th 10-year lSI interval. The NRC understands that there are currently no POI-qualified techniques to perform the examination of the lower 1/3T through a weld overlay.
3. Please explain why the weld overlay does not cover weld 2821-'1 FW-12AA-8.

ISI-RR-05

1. Please confirm that the dimensions shown under Figure 1 on page 3 of 3 are correct (i.e., is the Code-required volume = 0.2 sq. inches as indicated).
2. This relief request notes that "scans for axial flaws were not required for this carbon steel weld." Please confirm that no longitudinal weld intersects this circumferential weld, and how this was determined.

ISI-RR No additional RAls.

ISI-RR No additional RAls.

ISI-RR No additional RAls ISI-RR-11

1. Prior to the implementation of POI examinations, greater coverage (82%) was reported on weld 2G31-1RWCUM-6-0-16 in relief request RR-56 dated July 10, 2006. Please explain why it was possible to achieve 100% coverage for axial indications in the 3fd lSI interval and only 50% in the 4 th interval. Additionally, it appears that it was possible to achieve some coverage from the taper side of the weld for circumferential indications in the prior interval. Why was that not achieved in this interval? If POI-qualified examinations were not possible on the taper side, were non-POI exams possible with results reported as supplemental information?
2. In light of the above, please address each of the other 3 welds listed in ISI-RR-11 in th terms of whether it is possible to achieve greater coverage in the 4 lSI interval, even if the technique used is non-POI-qualified and only reported as supplemental information.

-3

3. For welds 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-15, 2G31-1 RWCUM-6-D-16, and 2G31-1RWCUM-6-D-17, please explain why refracted longitudinal waves were not used for the examination.

" ML102860083

  • via e-mail OFFICE NRRlLPL2-1/PM NRRlLPL2-1/LA NRRlCVIB/BC NRRlLPL2-1/BC NRRlLPL2-1/PM NAME RMartin SRohrer TLupold* GKulesa RMartin (KCotton for)

DATE 10/22/10 10/18/10 10/1/10 10/22/10 10/22/10