ML17054A138
| ML17054A138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17054A137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310070119 | |
| Download: ML17054A138 (18) | |
Text
~i 'A l>i(ggi gV 1~
i~*<<4 t
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVIISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO RE UESTS FOR RELIEF FROM INSERVICE INSPECTION RE UIREMENTS Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 INTRODUCTION Technical Specification 4.2.6 for the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 states that inservice examination of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission.
Certain require-ments of later editions and addenda of Section XI are impractical to perform on older plants because of the plants'esign, component
- geometry, and materials of construction.
- Thus, 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) authorizes the Commission to grant relief from those requirements upon making the necessary findings.
By letters dated May 2, 1980 and July 30,
- 1982, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submitted its inservice inspection
- program, revisions, or addi-tional information related to requests for relief from certain Code require-ments determined to be impractical to perform on the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 facility during the inspection interval.
The program is based on the 1974 Edition including Summer 1975 Addenda of,Section XI of the ASME Code and covers the 120-'month inspection interval from Fall 1975 through Sprinq 1986.
EVALUATION Requests for relief from the requirements of Section XI which have been determined to be impractical to perform have been reviewed by the Staff's contractor, Science Applications, Inc.
The contractor's evaluations of the licensee's requests for relief and his recommendations are presented in the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) attached (ATTACHMENT 1).
The staff has reviewed the TER and agrees with the evaluations and recommendations with the exception of the ISI inspection interval.
A summary of the determina-tions made by the staff is presented in the following tables:
Ssi0070> >9 BS0e<9 PDR ADOCK 05000220 8
TABL CLASS 1 COMPONENTS LICENSEE PROPOSED IWB-2600 IWB-2500 SYSTBI OR AREA TO BE RE/VIREO, ALTERNATIVE ITEM NO.
EXAM.CAT.
COMPONENT EXAMINED METHOD EXAM.
RELIEF REQUEST STATUS Bl. 1 8-A Reactor Vessel Welds in Beltlinc Area Volumetric Visual Exam on Accessible Length and Hydro Test
.GRANTED Bl. 2 8"8 Ci rcumf er-'ntial&
Longitudinal Welds in Vessel but Not in Beltlinc Volumetric Visual Exam of Accessible Length and Hydro Test GRANTEO
- 81. 8 8-G-1 Reactor Vessel Vessel Closure Studs and Nuts Surface and Visual and Volumetric Volumetric GRANTEO Bl. 16'-N-2 Reactor Vessel Interior Attachment, Liqui d Poison Sparger Visual None NOT GRANTEO
- 84. 9
- 85. 4
- 85. 4 8-K-1 8-K-1 8"K-1 'iping Pumps
. Valves Integr al 1y-Welded Suppor.s Volumetric Surface GRANTED
- 85. 7
- 86. 7 8-L-2 8"M"2 Pumps Valves Internal Surfaces Visual Examine Our ing Maintenance GRANTED IN PAR'7
0 l
TABLE 2 CLASS 2
COMPONENTS LICENSEE PROPOSED IWC"2600 IWC-2520 SYSTEM OR AREA TO BE REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE ITEM NO.
EXAM.CAT.
COMPONENT EXAMINED METHOD EXAM.
RELIEF REQUEST STATUS C1. 2 C-B Shutdown Heat Exchanger Nozzl e-to Vessel Welds HX-38 IN HX-38-11-OUT HX-38 IN HX"38-12-OUT HX-38 IN HX"38-13" OUT Volumetric Surface GRANTED C2. 5 C3. 3 C4. 3 C-E-1 C-E" 1 C-E"1 Piping Plumps Valves Integrally-Surface Welded Supports Only welds that have been prepared for surface exam will be tested; visual on all others NOT GRANTED
I
TABLE 3 CLASS 3
COMPONENTS No Relief Requests
TABLE 4 PRESSURE TEST SYSTEM OR COMPONENT IWA"5000 IWB"5000 IWC"5000 8c IWD"5000 TEST PRESSURE RE UIREMENT LICENSEE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TEST PRESSURE RELIEF RE/VEST STATUS No Re 1 ief Requests
TABLE 5 ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION TECHNIOUE SYSTEM OR COMPONENT RE UIREMENT.
LICENSEE PROPOSEO ALTERNATIVE EXAMINATION METHOD No Relief Requests RELIEF REQUEST STATUS
l
SYSTEM/COMPONENT TABLE 6 GENERAL RELIEF RE UESTS ALL CLASSES/COMPONENTS RE UIREMENT No Relief Requests LICENSEE ALTERNATE RELIEF REQUEST STATUS
The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, was originally licensed on August 22, 1969.
The original provisions for ISI were for inspections of the primary coolant boundary.
The facility was issued its full term operating license on December 26, 1974.
The licensee, as a part of the license conversion, instituted an ISI program in accordance with the ASME BSPV Code,Section XI, 1974 edition through Summer 1975 Addenda, with the original inspection interval covering the period from Fall 1975 through Spring 1986.
The date of commercial operation for the facility was December 1969 and therefore, the first inspection interval should be from December 1969 to December 1979.
However, since the ASME Code requirements did not exist at the original issuance of the license and the licensee has completed over two-thirds of the inspections for the 1975 to 1985 inspection interval, we find it would be impractical to change the inspec-tion interval at this time and, therefore, grant relief pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g) in accordance with the licensee request contained in the June 30, 1982 submittal.
Inspection from Fall 1975 to Spring 1986 using the 1974 ed.
through Summer.1975 Addenda of the ASME BSPV Code Section XI, incorporated requirements for inspection of Category A, B, and C safety systems as defined by Regulatory Guide 1.26 and, therefore, provided an equivalent level of assurance that the integrity of pressure retaining components will be maintained.
Based on the review summarized, the staff concludes that relief granted from the examination requirements and alternate methods imposed through this document give reasonable assurance of the piping and component pressure boundary and support structural integrity, that granting relief where the Code requirements are impractical is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public izterest considering the burden that could result if they were imposed on the facility.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that granting relief from specific ASME Section XI Code requirements does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level, and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this is an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the grant of this relief.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because this action does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previous'ly considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the action does not invol've'a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission s regulations, and issuance of this action will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Princi al Contributor:
G. Johnson September 19, 1983
Enclosure:
l