ML103480750

Request for Additional Information Email Sent 10-13-2010, Request for Alternative ANO1-R&R-013, Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval, Repairs to the Pressurizer Instrumentation Penetrations

ML103480750
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	12/14/2010
From:	Kalyanam K Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Clark R W Entergy Operations
Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-1480
References
TAC ME3701
Download: ML103480750 (1)

Text

From: Kalyanam, Kaly Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:12 AM To: CLARK, ROBERT W Cc: Lent, Susan; Burkhardt, Janet

Subject:

RAI - Questions from the CPNB Branch CHief

Bob, I am formalizing the Request for Additional Information sent on October 13, 2010, to Entergy's Request for Alternative ANO1-R&R-013, Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval, Repairs to the Pressurizer Instrumentation Penetrations."

Thanks. N. Kalyanam PM, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 and 2 and Waterford 3.

The SUNSI information as follows:

Plant: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.: 50-313

Subject:

RAI on Requests for Alternative ANO1-R&R-013 TAC Nos.: ME3701, SUNSI Review Done: Yes. Publicly Available, Normal Release, Non-sensitive, From: N. Kalyanam To: Robert Clark

1. On page 8, question no. 10, of the licensee's letter of response to the staff RAI dated April 12, 2010, the licensee stated in part, "These nine penetrations consist of seven penetrations that are one-inch (nominal pipe size) nozzles that are attached to the pressurizer with a partial penetration weld located at the inside surface of the pressurizer. The other two penetrations consist of a 1.5-inch diameter thermowell that is attached to the pressurizer with a partial penetration weld located at the inside surface of the pressurizer, and a smaller thermowell that was installed through a spare penetration that was originally a one-inch nozzle similar to the other seven discussed above." Please clarify the sentence underlined/bold. Is this the 10 th nozzle? Please explain.

2. Flaw evaluation document ANO-34Q-326, pages 4, 5, and .. talk about "Self Similar Crack Growth" assumption and indicates that "this assumption is a conservative approach." Please describe underlying nature of "Self Similar Growth" and state why this assumption is considered conservative approach.

3. Was buttering applied/used between the J-groove attachment weld and the pressurizer carbon steel shell at the nozzle location?