ML12004A071

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Request for Additional Information (TAC No. ME6879)

ML12004A071
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	01/09/2012
From:	Martin R E Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Gatlin T D South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
Martin R E, 415-1493
References
TAC ME6879
Download: ML12004A071 (2)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 9, 2012 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin Vice President, Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. ME6879) Dear Mr. Gatlin: By letter dated August 16, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML11231 A250), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) submitted a proposed alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI inservice inspection (lSI) requirements regarding examination of certain reactor pressure vessel welds for Summer. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.55a(a)(3)(i), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) safety evaluation approving the use of WCAP-16168-NP-A, Revision 2, "Risk-Informed Extension of the Reactor Vessel In-Service Inspection Interval,n the NRC staff requires the following information to continue its review. Regarding observed indications from the most recent lSI interval examinations at Summer, as documented in Table 2 of the Proposed Alternative, clearly state the location and size of the one indication that was found in the plate material of the reactor pressure vessel beltline area. Identify the plate material in which the indication was located and identify the inspection methodology used. Was this indication observed in previous lSI interval inspections? Did the size of the indication change during the course of the subsequent lSI inspection? If there was a change in the size of the indication, is that change attributed to improved inspection procedures or an aging mechanism? We request that a response be provided within forty-five (45) days of the date of this letter. Sincerely, Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Plant licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-395 cc: Distribution via Listserv January 9,2012 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin Vice President, Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 29065 VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 (SUMMER)-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. ME6879) Dear Mr. Gatlin: By letter dated August 16, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML 11231A250), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) submitted a proposed alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI inservice inspection (lSI) requirements regarding examination of certain reactor pressure vessel welds for Summer. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.55a(a)(3)(i), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) safety evaluation approving the use of WCAP-16168-NP-A, Revision 2, "Risk-Informed Extension of the Reactor Vessel In-Service Inspection Interval:' the NRC staff requires the following information to continue its review. Regarding observed indications from the most recent lSI interval examinations at Summer, as documented in Table 2 of the Proposed Alternative, clearly state the location and size of the one indication that was found in the plate material of the reactor pressure vessel beltline area. Identify the plate material in which the indication was located and identify the inspection methodology used. Was this indication observed in previous lSI interval inspections? Did the size of the indication change during the course of the subsequent lSI inspection? If there was a change in the size of the indication, is that change attributed to improved inspection procedures or an aging mechanism? We request that a response be provided within forty-five (45) 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 No. 50-395 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC LPL2-1 R/F RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl2-1 Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource RidsNrrLASFigueroa Resource RidsOgcRp Resource RidsNrrPMSummer Resource DWidrevitz, NRR ADAMS Accession N umber: M 1 00 4AO71 )yemal'1 dated 12/30/11L *b OFFICE LPL2-1/PM LPL2-1/LA NRR/EVIB/BC(A) LPL2-1/BC LPL2-1/PM NAME RMartin SFigueroa HGonzalez I(DWidrevitz for) GKulesa (PBoyle for) RMartin DATE 01/09112 01/05/12 12/30/11 01/09/12 01/09/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY