ML17112A045

NRR E-mail Capture - Watts Bar, Unit 2 - Final Request for Additional Information Concerning Request for Relief from ASME Requirements

ML17112A045
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	04/20/2017
From:	Robert Schaaf Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Wells R Tennessee Valley Authority
References
CNL-16-135, MF8515
Download: ML17112A045 (6)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Schaaf, Robert Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:34 PM To: Wells, Russell Douglas; Gordon Arent; Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn Cc: Young, Austin; Cumblidge, Stephen; Beasley, Benjamin; Brock, Kathryn

Subject:

Watts Bar, Unit 2 - Final Request for Additional Information Concerning Request for Relief From ASME Requirements (CAC No. MF8515)

Attachments: Watts Bar 2 - Final RAIs for PSI Relief Request - MF8515.pdf On March 30, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff sent the Tennessee Valley Authority draft requests for additional information (RAIs) via e-mail. These RAIs relate to TVAs application dated October 5, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16293A334), requesting relief from American Society of Mechanical Engineers,Section XI coverage requirements for certain preservice inspection examinations.

An RAI clarification call was held on April 12, 2017. The final RAIs are attached to this e-mail. The attached RAIs are modified from the March 30, 2017, draft to (1) correct references to the configuration of weld WP-12 in RAI 2, (2) clarify the information sought by RAI 3, and (3) delete an additional question that was redundant to RAI 5 in the attached RAIs.

During the April 12, 2017, clarification call TVA requested additional time to provide its response to these final RAIs. As justification for its request, TVA stated that the personnel responsible for compiling the responses to the RAIs are dedicated to outage inspection activities at TVA facilities through late-May 2017, and that compiling the significant amount of requested information from old records, ensuring the accuracy of the data, and completing management reviews would subsequently require approximately 6 weeks to complete.

Therefore, TVA requested approval to provide the responses to the attached RAIs by July 14, 2017.

TVAs requested response date of July 14 is roughly 90 days from the clarification call or this e-mail. As stated in 10 CFR 2.108, an application may be denied if the applicant fails to respond to an RAI within 30 days or within such other time as may be specified. NRC staff internal processes require executive approval for a response time greater than 60 days. NRC executive management review of TVAs request has determined that TVA has provided adequate justification for the requested response timeframe and that the NRC expects to be able to complete its review within established timeliness metrics for completion of licensing reviews. The NRCs decision to approve TVAs requested response date is predicated on an expectation that TVA will provide timely, thorough, and accurate responses to the staffs RAIs. As noted in the August 22, 2016, letter from the Director of the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing to all operating reactor licensees (ADAMS Accession No. ML16225A003), should RAI responses be untimely or substantially change the scope of the initially planned review, the staff will consider whether to deny, in part or in its entirety, or re-prioritize the review of an application, as significant slipping of schedules adversely impacts already established workload management processes and the completion of other previously planned and prioritized licensing work.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-6020 or Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov.

Regards, Robert G. Schaaf Robert G. Schaaf Senior Project Manager, Watts Bar/Bellefonte Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 1

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8G9A Washington, DC 20555 301-415-6020 (o)

Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov 2

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3458 Mail Envelope Properties (57b0e8c60f72496ab0404f885a159582)

Subject:

Watts Bar, Unit 2 - Final Request for Additional Information Concerning Request for Relief From ASME Requirements (CAC No. MF8515)

Sent Date: 4/20/2017 3:33:58 PM Received Date: 4/20/2017 3:33:00 PM From: Schaaf, Robert Created By: Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Young, Austin" <Austin.Young@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Cumblidge, Stephen" <Stephen.Cumblidge@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Beasley, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Beasley@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Brock, Kathryn" <Kathryn.Brock@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Wells, Russell Douglas" <rdwells0@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Gordon Arent" <garent@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Hulvey, Kimberly Dawn" <kdhulvey@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS07.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3441 4/20/2017 3:33:00 PM Watts Bar 2 - Final RAIs for PSI Relief Request - MF8515.pdf 31804 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: ZZZ

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELIEF REQUEST WBN-2/PSI-1 REVISION 1 EXAMINATIONS FOR PRESERVICE INSPECTION WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-391 By letter dated October 5, 2016, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16293A334) the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee),

submitted relief request WBN-2/PSI-1, Revision 1, requesting relief from the essentially 100 percent volumetric coverage requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components for the preservice inspections due to access limitations at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2.

Specifically, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a(g)(5)(iii),

the licensee requested relief from the essentially 100 percent volumetric coverage requirements of ASME Code Section XI for the subject welds on the basis that the code requirement is impractical. The NRC has determined that the following additional information is necessary to complete its review and make a regulatory decision.

RAI 1

Regarding component IDs W02-03, N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, and CCPH-2B-B-IA please provide examination sheets detailing scan diagrams, including the coverage obtained, coverage calculations and obstructions inhibiting further examination.

RAI 2

Regarding component IDs W08-09, WP-11, WP-12, WP-13, WP-14, WP-15, please define the directions in items 6 through 9 (e.g. axial out, axial in, transverse clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW)). Also, please resubmit these figures highlighting the specific examination volume for which coverage was obtained with each scan.

Additionally, for the components listed below:

x W08 Notes that scan #3 limitation is due to flange and scan #4 limitation is due to lifting lugs however the scan directions are never defined with numbers. Please confirm which directions are associated with these scans. Also, please show graphically where these lifting lugs prevent examination.

x WP With two different angles scanning in the same direction with the same geometric obstructions, please explain how the same coverage was obtained for item 7 (direction 2) in both the 60 and 45 degree exams considering the transducers have two different angles but seem to have the same examination limitations. Also, for item 9 (direction 4) of the 0 degree exams, explain what prevented this scan from achieving the same weld length as the other three scans.

2 x WP The 60 degree scan should obtain greater coverage scanning in towards the nozzle than the 45 degree scan. On the other hand, the 45 degree scan should obtain greater coverage than the 60 degree scan when scanning outward away from the nozzle. Therefore, assuming that direction 1 is axial in and direction 2 is axial out for both degree scans, please explain how greater coverage was obtained for the 60 degree scans than for the 45 degree scans in both directions, for items 6 and 7 (directions 1 and 2).

x WP Please explain how the same coverage was obtained for item 6 (directions 1) in both the 60 and 45 degree exams considering the transducers have two different angles but seem to have the same examination limitations.

RAI 3

Regarding component ID BIT-2, the rectangle labeled 1 on page 8 of 12 of R-P2183 lies between the 3.25 inch and 2.25 inch measurements corresponding to a width of 1 inch.

Additionally, this would correspond to a width of 0.65 inches from the centerline to the near edge of this rectangle. On page 9 of 12, the rectangle labeled 2, which corresponds to rectangle 1 on the previous page, shows a width of 0.5 inches and the width between the rectangle and the weld centerline as 1.15 inches. Lastly, in accordance with figure IWC-2500-1 of ASME Code Section XI, the required examination volume extends half an inch from the end of the weld which would be in line with the measurements on page 9 of 12. Please verify that rectangle 1 on page 8 of 12 is in fact 0.5 inches in width and that the width labeled as 2.25 inches is actually 2.75 inches.

Regarding component ID SWIFLTR-62-96, the figure and associated calculations on page 7 of 9 of R-P2373 depict 50% coverage of the ASME code required examination area. The final calculations on that page report 77.75% exam coverage and that is what was reported in Table 1 of the licensees submittal. Please confirm if 50% of the required exam coverage was examined using a qualified procedure and if the reported 77.75% coverage refers to additional exam coverage obtained but cannot be credited due to the qualification of the examinations.

RAI 4

Regarding component IDs BIT-5-IA, BIT-6-IA, BIT-7-IA, BIT-8-IA and CCPH-2B-B-IA, No Recordable Indications was not included in the additional information section. Please confirm whether any recordable indications were identified and if so, provide the details of the dimensions and location.

RAI 5

Provide the weld metals used in the Category B-F, Inspection Item B5.70 Welds.

RAI 6

Welds RCF-E1-2-SE, RCF-E2-2-SE, and RCF-E4-2-SE are described as Nozzle to-safe-end welds in Table 1, but are described as Elbow-to-safe-end welds in the respective report numbers R-P2440, R-P2442, and R-P2437. Please clarify the apparent discrepancy, considering all aspects of these welds that are addressed in the submission, including the coverage maps and materials of construction.

3

RAI 7

Several piping welds have a cast stainless steel component, specifically welds RCF-E1-2-SE, RCF-G1-1-SE, RCF-E2-2-SE, RCF-G2-1-SE, RCF-E3-2-SE, RCF-G3-1-SE, RCF-E4-2-SE, RCF-G4-1-SERCF-C2-2, RCF-C3-2,RCF-C4-1,,RCF-C3-1,RCF-C2-1,RCF-Cl-1,RCF-Cl-2,RCF-C4-2, RCS-1-6, RCS-2-6, RCS-3-6, RCS-4-6, and RCW-02. For these welds:

a. Were the scans on cast stainless steel components encoded?

b. What frequencies were used for the inspections of cast stainless steel components?