ML20134L036

Forwards RAI Re Plant Alternative to 10CFR50.55A(G)(6)(ii) (a) Augmented Reactor Pressure Vessel Insp

ML20134L036
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	02/13/1997
From:	Pulsifer R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Johnson I COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
TAC-M97370, NUDOCS 9702180200
Download: ML20134L036 (6)

Text

February 13, 1997

. Ms. Irena Johns:n, Acting Manag2r Nuclear Regulatcry S;rvices Commonrealth Edis:n Company Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING THE QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION,_ UNIT 1, ALTERNATIVE TO 10 CFR 50.55A(G)(6)(ii)(A) AUGMENTED REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) EXAMINATION (TAC NO. M97370);

Dear Ms.' Johnson:

1 g

e . . ;

By letter dated November 22, 1996, Commonwealth' Edison Company (Comed) submitted an alternative to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)1 augmented reactor pressure vessel examination requirements for-Quad Cities Nuclear! Power Station, Unit 1. The staff with assistance from its contractor,, Idaho (INEL), is reviewing and evaluating ~this National alternative. Engineering Additional informaLaboratory, tion is' required from' Comed'in order for the staff to complete its review. '

e s . - ,

H;3 The staff requests that the responsei o'th' t attached e RAI be' forwarded [t NRC within 60 days. In addition, to expedite the review process, please send a copy of the RAI response to the NRC's contractor, INEL,Jat the following address: i 4

C

,o Michael T. Anderson .

INEL Research Center 2151 North Boulevard .

P.O. Box 1625 ,

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-2209 -

,,i Sincerely, 1 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager Project Directorate III Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-254

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page Distribution:

Docket File ACRS, T2E26 gg h PUBLIC OGC, 015B18  !

PDIII-2 r/f R. Pulsifer i J. Roe, JWR C. Moore E. Adensam, EGA1 R. Capra 'Ql'i P. Hiland, RIII DOCUMENT NAME: QUAD \QC97370.RAI To reesive e espy of thie A--* Indosee in the ben: "C" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy with enclosuree *N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDIII-2_ 6 LA:PDIII-2 D:PDIII-2 le NAME RPULSIFER/JP CM00RE GmH* fre RCAPRA w DATE 02//$/97~ 02/13 [97 02/s/97

] b U UJ-) 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9702180200 970213 '

PDR ADOCK 05000254 G PDR ,

VdDruary W,~h)F Ms. Irsne J hnsen, Acting Manag ;r Nuclear Regulatory Services Commonwealth Edisen Company Executive Towers West III i 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING THE QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1, ALTERNATIVE TO 10 CFR 50.55A(G)(6)(ii)(A) AUGMENTED REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) EXAMINATION (TAC NO. M97370)

Dear Ms. Johnson:

By letter dated November 22, 1996, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) submitted an alternative to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) augmented reactor pressure vessel examination requirements for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. The staff with assistance from its contractor, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), is reviewing and evaluating this .

alternative. Additional information is required from Comed in order for the  !

staff to complete its review. 1 Tl.e staff requests that the response to the attached RAI be forwarded to NRC within 60 days. In addition, to expedite the review process, please send a copy of the RAI response to the NRC's contractor, INEL, at the following address:

Michael T. Anderson INEL Research Center 2151 North Boulevard P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-2209 Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.: 50-254

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page Distribution:

Docket File ACRS, T2E26 PUBLIC OGC, 015B18 PDIII-2 r/f R. Pulsifer J. Roe, JWR C. Moore E. Adensas, EGAl R. Capra P. Hiland, RIII DOCUMENT NAME: QUAD \QC97370.RAI Ta ,eenive e espy of this desunennt, Indoses bi the ben: 'C' = Copy without enclosures *E* = Copy with enclosures *N* = No copy 0FFICE PN:PDIII-2 6 LA:PDIII-2 D:PDIII-2 s NAME RPULSIFEll(JP CM00RE cm H /re RCAPRA e DATE 02//997~ 02/J3/97 02/t3 /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

psf

• \*1 0' UNITED STATES

,j l

l

~ l R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.O. Sh,564001 l

o% *****/ February 13, 1997 l

Ms. Irene Johnson, Acting Manager Nuclear Regulatory Services Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING THE QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 ALTERNATIVE TO 10 CFR 50.55A(G)(6)(ii)(A) AUGMENTED REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV)

EXAMINATION (TAC NO. M97370)

Dear Ms. Johnson:

By letter dated November 22, 1996, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) submitted an alternative to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) augmented reactor pressure vessel examination requirements for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. The staff with assistance from its contractor, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), is reviewing and evaluating this alternative. Additional information is required from Comed in order for the staff to complete its review.

The staff requests that the response to the attached RAI be forwarded to NRC within 60 days. In addition, to expedite the review process, please send a  ;

copy of the RAI response to the NRC's contractor, INEL, at the following )

address:

Michael T. Anderson INEL Research Center 2151 North Boulevard i P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-2209 l Sincerely, y

~

Rohrt M. Pulsifer, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nu:: lear Reactor Regulation i

Docket No.: 50-254

Enclosure:

As stated l cc w/ enc 1: See next page

1

~

l I. Johnson Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Commonwealth Edison Company Unit Nos. I and 2  !

cc: i Michael I. Miller, Esquire Document Control Desk-Licensing l Sidley and Austin Commonwealth Edison Company  !

One First National Plaza 1400 Opus Place, Suite 400  !

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 l Mr. L. William Pearce l Station Manager Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 22710 206th Avenue North

Cordova, Illinois 61242 l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quad Cities Resident Inspectors Office  !

22712 206th Avenue North r Cordova, Illinois 61242 L Chairman

Rock Island County Board of Supervisors  ;

1504 3rd Avenue l

Rock Island County Office Bldg.

Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety l l Office of Nuclear Facility Safety

• 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 i Regional Administrator i U.S. NRC, Region III l 801 Warrenville Road l l Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 l Richard J. Singer Manager - Nuclear

MidAmerican Energy Company

! 907 Walnut Street l

P.0, Box 657 Des Poines, Iowa 50303 Brent E. Gale, Esq.

Vice President - Law and Regulatory Affairs MidAmerican Energy Company

, One Rivertenter Place

! 106 East Second Street P.O. Box 4350 i Davenport, Iowa 52808 i

i  !

i*

l REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l RELATING TO AN ALTERNATIVE TO AUGMENTED REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTION

! 00AD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 1

l DOCKET NUMBER: 50-254 i

Request for Additional Infomation - Alternative to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) j Augmented Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Examination

1. Scone / Status of Review f

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A), all licensees must implement once, as part of the inservice inspection interval in effect on September 8,1992, an augmented voimiric examination of the RPV welds specified in Item B1.10 of Examination Category B-A of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code, Section XI. Examination Category B-A, Items B1.11 and 81.12 require volumetric examination of essentially 100 percent of the RPV circumferential and longitudinal shell welds, as defined by Figures IWB-2500-1 and -2, respectively. Essentially 100 percent, as defined by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2), is greater than 90 percent of the examination volume of each weld. Licensee's unable to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) must propose an alternative to the examination requirements, which may be used when authorized by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. In addition, all areviously granted relief for Item Bl.10, Examination Category B-A for t te interval in effect on September 8, 1992, are revoked by the new regulation. For licensees with fewer than 40 months remaining in the interval on the effective date, deferral of l the augmented examination is permissible with the conditions stated in )

the regulations. '

The staff has reviewed tho information submitted by the licensee in a letter dated November 22, 1996, proposing an alternative to the 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) augmented RPV examination.  !

2. Additional Information Reauired  ;

The staff has concluded that additional infomation and/or clarification is required to complete the evaluation.

2.1 Provide the date of the augmented RPV examination. In addition, provide a history of the examinations performed on the RPV to date. The licensee stated that the augmented examination was perfomed utilizing the GERIS system from within the reactor pressure vessel. Describe how examinations were performed on the vessel for the previous intervals. Did the vessel receive a 100 percent baseline examination?

ENCLOSURE

l

• i

. \

d 2.2 Considering that the augmented vessel examination is a one time requirement, and considering past examinations may have been performed from the outside surface, discuss increasing examination coverages from the outside surface.

2.3 The licensee noted that 53 indications were detected by the augmented examination. The licensee stated that all of these flaws were determined to be fabrication flaws. Provide the basis for this determination.

2.4 Based on the review of the limitations listed by the ifcensee, it appears that one of the main factors resulting in the noncompliance with Code-required coverage is associated with the inspection device manipulator lower limit. For reactor pressure <

vessel longitudinal welds RPV-VSCI-55 and RPV-VSCl-317, coverages j of less than 90 percent were obtained and for circumferential weld i RPV-CW-LHC1, 0 percent coverage was obtained. Provide further discussion on these limited examinations. It appears that modification of the manipulator may provide additional reach for increased coverage.

2.5 The licensee noted that the procedure for performing the augmented examination was an alternative examination method. In addition, it is stated that the procedure was not in strict compliance with ASME Section XI 1989 Edition, Paragraph IWA-2232; ASME Section V Article 4; or NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150. It is generally agreed that qualification by demonstration would provide a basis to I conclude that the flaw detection capabilities of a procedure will i be at least equal to that of past examinations. However,  !

performance demonstration does not preclude the requirement to satisfy the Code of record for a plant or other commitments that l

the licensee may have made. As such, describe the differences '

between the requirements associated with the Code of record and commitments for the licensee's plant, and the procedure implemented to satisfy the subject examinations. Verify that scanning of welds was performed from both sides of the weld on the same surface where feasible. These examinations should have included scanning for reflectors oriented parallel and transverse to the weld.

l 1

-_ _ _ _ _ _ . - - . _ ._ _ .__ _ ._ l