ML17146A716
| ML17146A716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1987 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17146A717 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703020313 | |
| Download: ML17146A716 (8) | |
Text
VV February 18, 1987
'ocket No.:
50-387 Mr. Harold W. Keiser Vice President Nuclear Operations Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101
Dear Mr. Keiser:
DISTRIBUTION:
~8-,383 NRC PDR Local PDR BWD-3 r/f EAdensam MThadani RBernero
~wH
~T4 EHylton JPartlow EJordan BGrimes Atty, OGC ACRS (10)
Subject:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SES) Unit 1-1st Ten-Year Interval Inspection Program and on Requests for Relief from Certain Requirements The Commission's regulation 10 CFR 50.55a(g) requires ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components (including supports) of a boiling water-cooled nuclear reactor facility to meet the requirements set forth in Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Each facility is required to have an inspection program plan which is updated every ten years to meet the requirements of the latest approved edition and addenda of Section XI.
This program plan is submitted to the NRC for review of the licensee's compliance with the Regulation which entails verifying that the program plan is based on the correct Code edition and addenda, verifying that the correct systems, sampling plans, and non-destructive examination methods have been incorporated, and evaluating the efficacy of proposed alternative examinations and tests to be performed in lieu of the requirements.
By letter dated June 30, 1983, Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPSL) submitted its first interval (June 8, 1983 to June 8, 1993) ISI program plan.
In response to a staff request for additional information, PPSL submitted, by letter dated December 19,
- 1984, a revised program plan.
A response to a second staff request for additional information was provided by PPSL in a letter dated August 12, 1986.
Included in the initial program plan and the revision were requests for relief from examination requirements determined to be impractical to perform at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit l.
We have reviewed and evaluated the Inservice Inspection Plan and requests for relief with technical assistance from our contractor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
The staff has reviewed the Technical Eval-uation Report (TER) prepared by SAIC on the inservice inspection program and the requests for relief and has adopted the TER evaluations and conclusions.
Our Safety Evaluation and SAIC's TER are enclosed.
We have granted relief from the examination requirements which we have deter-mined to be impractical to perform and where granting of relief would not com-promise the safety of the facility.
We have denied relief in the cases where the necessary findings to support a relief could not be made.
We have also determined that the inservice inspection plan is acceptable for implementation.
~70302031 3 ~Obey g PDR ADOCg Oooo~>>7 6
'PDR
1 14 h
,4 4 ~
14 I
h 4
'I ~ 4 4114 4
~
I, 4
Based on our review, we have determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i),
'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.
We have also determined that granting relief is otherwise in the public interest con-sidering the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.
During the review of your inservice inspection plan we have not identi-fied any significant misinterpretation or omissions of Code requirements.
- Thus, the inservice inspection plan is acceptable for implementation.
Sincerely,
/S/
Enclosure:
As stated Elinor G. Adensam, Director BWR Project Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing cc:
See next page
- NOTE: PREVIOUSLY CONCURRED BWD-3:DBL LA:BWD-3:DBL
- MThadani/vag
- EHylton 02/04/87 02/04/87 OGC
- MYoung 02/09/87 D:
- DBL E
sam 02/I
/87
~
~
~ l $)')
4
~
R fl,),.
-M
')
R))
>>fr>>,
4 ),4 P'f 4*'
MR fr,yfg )=,44
>...<~
M'f R M; fl',Qrl
'P Ri 4, Q,i M
) f
$ "4) 4 0))$
f gr>>
g M') t g)pt
<<<<g
.4>>f>>).<<))
4 i
.<<rf 4 '"R,'4 RMM'f'>>
4' AM, 0
'R'))<<>>
fg'-,'4 f.<<RR">>l, M'"
);)") Y)
.R il Y,<<MY R>>r 'R 4>>f IM()
>>R~, [
~
-R 4;"<<-
R)3/
4)M
$ $ ~)R(
<<<<'>I'>> MN <<'>>0 4)r f <.)~"
.RM'ffrl (i 4
~,'.q.*RIP;q'V $,l) 3 i'W
. f()'J:4 t:
M i
>>',f It<'P >,( ) ',M)f > f"'I M4RY.
f ')$ >>l) P 1>>)),l,'R 'l R'.",j <<I(l< "
'Rl Ii,>>,R'R'
) "i>>f')')M)g R f 'X,)f >>'M, I'l
<<)<<)
l Y't"
.f,
~ R PM',l;"
~
C
<<4M ) I il B,M'"Y') <<",)>>3 M)
)"
l ',
))R4) 4 4
4
,1>>
4 ~ RM <<
<<T
<<i1
'll "M M
'I 9>>R)
~
~
o Based on our review, we have determined that pursuant to 10 CF 50.55a(g)(6)(i) granting relief where the Code requirements are impractical authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the common defe e and security.
Me have also determined that granting relief is otherwise i the public interest con-sideringg the burden that could result if the requiremen s were imposed on the facility.
During the review of your inservice inspec non plan we have not identi-fied any significant misinterpretation or omissions f Code requirements.
- Thus, the inservice inspection plan is acceptable for i lementation.
Sincer y,
Enclosure:
As stated Elinor G. Adensam, Director BWR Project Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing cc:
See next page B D-3:DBL MThadani/vag
+of/87 L '3:DBL E
n Q/87 lp>
88C@~~
D:BWD-3:DBL EAdensam 0Q
/87
~
~
111 I
1
$ 1 1
t Ir, t
(I'k tk I
t
)
)
ÃI 0
~ r-f,tr.,g
~ fr 111 C
k'k I
c,*l k
C
(
c'r
~
r k,l
- ~ '
}
kllr
'1 k
I 1
k 1r t
1 M t
NI K
I I
tl tl KCI "1
I'I
'v f't l C
~
I 4
4 C
Mr. Harold W. Keiser Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 5 2
CC:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge 2300 N Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.
Assistant Corporate Counsel Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. E. A. Heckman Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. Loren Plisco Resident Inspector P.O.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Mr. R. J.
Benich Services Project Manager General Electric Company 1000 First Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Robert W. Alder, Esquire Office of Attorney General P.O.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Jesse C. Tilton III Allegheny Flee. Coorperative, Inc.
212 Locust Street P.O.
Box 1266 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1266 Mr.
W. H. Hirst, Manager Joint Generation Projects Department Atlantic Electric P.O.
Box 1500 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
'I h
,l tl I
~
>f 4
n