ML17258B077
| ML17258B077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258B078 | List: |
| References | |
| LSO5-81-05-050, LSO5-81-5-50, NUDOCS 8106050045 | |
| Download: ML17258B077 (14) | |
Text
tlMlllANNDli<6ll'i.kII',
May 26, 1981 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-05-050 Dock RC PDR LPDR TERA NSIC ORB g5 RF TNovak RTedesco GLainas JOlshinski JHeltemes DCrutchfi ld HSmith (a-GINNA RPSnai der OELD OIiE (5)
ACRS (10)
Gray File Xtra Cy ION:
Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester,'ew York 14649
~ ~ gg~
-g
Dear Mr. Mafer:
RE:
INSERVICE VALVE TESTING PROGRAM-We have reviewed the inservice testing program - valves for the R.E.
Nuclear Power Plant.
This program is effective for the 120 month interval between January 1981 and December 1990 and is based upon your submittals dated April 6, 1977, August 4, 1977, October 31, 1977.
November 30, 1978, November 15, 1979, September 4, 1980, January
- 30. 1981, and March 2, 1981.
The approval of your inservice testing program-pumps and inservice inspec-tion program will be the subject of a separate letter and license amendment, respectively.
The enclosed Safety Evaluation (SE) discusses those items for which relief has been granted
. The relief allows postponement of certain examinations and imposes alternative examinations, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) of the Commission's regulations.
We are granting this relief and imposing alternative examinations based on our review of the information you submitted to support your determinations that certain ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Code requirements would be impractical for your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the coramn defense and
- security, and will otherwise be in the public interest.
In making this determination, we have given due consideration to the burden that could result i,:f these requirements were imposed on your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief from ASME Code require-ments does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environ-mental impact.
We have concluded tha't the granting of this relief is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that neither an 1; vironmental impact statement nor a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need to be prepared in connection with this action.
810605 Oc qG
t 4
~
l r ~
~
af ir.r >(l(,l I r."
~ 1 r) i:I fl"
~i l.~ '('r
'<Ail
~4
~le el~,"I
) i"V 4
~
t
~}r lair 1
~
If
(
I ) ~ /
I(
((C 'I P) ~
g ~
a l(tel
'l
~lf le~
n.
~ ie>.r ~(
~sC It'
~ ~i gx~
- nfof, f I gl I fin
> ~ Al
~
r II
mr. Jonn t.. Naser May 26, 1981 The relief does not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Commission safety review of the facility.
It does not involve a significant increase in the probability or conse-quences of an accident; does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and. therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
We have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action and that the issuance of this relief will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The relief from ASME Code requirements granted by the SE shall remain in effect until specifically revoked by the NRC or until the end of the 120 month period which began January 1, 1981.
Your attention is directed toward the following specific sections of the SE, which require additional action on your part:
(1)
Section 1.1.1 - Testing for the following valves is already included in the Event V order issued April 20, 1981.
853A 853B 867A 867B 878G 878J 877A 878F 877B 878H For the remainder of the valves listed in this section, you must provide, within 90 days of receipt of this letter, the results of your consideration regarding testing.
This should include the methods for testing.
If you determine that testing of these valves is unnecessary, you should provide detailed technical justification.
(2)
Section 1.1.6 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, any technical specification changes resulting from the review to which you have
- agreed, and (3)
Section 1.1.8 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, your comnitment with regard to incorporation of these modified cold shutdown testing requirements.
~
(
p E
e 1
fl
{
- I'"I
~ )y
) Ji l y i lw
+~i 3'Pi
) 9k'L gV
+j "Q~) h'e
~P' f'
zl
~/
j Mr. John E. Maier May 26, 1981 You should also note that the requirements for full-stroking of check valves 867A, 867B, 8786, and 878J, as discussed in Sections 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.1.2, are distinct from the system integrity requirements of the Event V order discussed above.
Both functional and integrity tests are required.
A copy of the Safety Evaluation is enclosed, in addition to a related Notice.
Sincerely.
.Orl8inal slgned by Dennis M. Crutchfield Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
Safety Evaluation and Notice cc w/enclosures:
See next page
/ 8
- SEE PREVIOUS COPY FOR CONCURRENCES ORB 5:DL RSnaider:dn*
4/22/81 OELD EKS*
5/11/81 OFFICE)
SURNAME/
OATE D ORB85:DL HSmith*
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4/22/81 DChaney*
4/23/81 MEB:DE RBosnak*
4/24/81 A
SA:DL GC nas
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5/
81 C
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DC fie1d
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5r5e'81
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
NRC FORM 318 IIO/80) NRCM 9240 OFFICIAL RECORD'OPY
- USGPO: 198~29.824 J
1
'I 1
s I
I 1
1
~r
'I
Docket No. 50-244 LS05 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 DISTRIBUTION NRC PDR L PDR ORB¹5 R/F TNovak RTedesco GLainas JOlshinski JKeltemes, AEOD DCrutchfield HSmith RSnaider OELD
.I~8 E(3)
Dear Mr. Maier:
RE:
INSERVICE VALVE TESTING PROGRAM - GINNA We have reviewed the inservice testing program - valves for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
This program is effective for the 120 month interval between January 1981 and December 1990 and is based upon your submittals dated April 6,, 1977, August 4, 1977, October 31, 1977, November 30, 1978, November 15, 1979, September 4, 1980, January 30, 1981, and March 2, 1981.
The approval of your inservice testing program-pumps and inservice inspec-tion program will be the subject of a separate letter and license amendment respectively.
The enclosed Safety Evaluation (SE) discusses those items for which relief has been granted and alternative examinations defined.
We are granting this relief and imposing alternative examinations based on our review of the information you submitted to support your determinations that certain ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Code requirements would be impractical for your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief is authorized by law and. will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and security, and will otherwise be in the public interest.
In making this determination we have given due consideration to the burden that could result if these requirements were imposed on your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief does'ot involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a,ccidents previously considered nor a decrease in safety margins, and thus does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Furthermore, we have determined that 'the granting of this relief from ASME Code require-ments does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environ-mental impact.
'We have concluded that the granting of this relief is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to
. 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that neither an environmental impact statement nor a
negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need to be prepared in connection with this action.
e on~" 5
~
~
C '
~
dl A
@~a 41
=r l
f ~
%f8 et'
$'f'l II g gg cg I
~10telt
)HI si t'N
~
~It Mr. John E. Maier The relief from ASME Code requirements granted by the SE shall remain in effect until specifically revoked by the NRC or until the end of the 120-month period which began January 1, 1981.
Your attention is directed toward the following specific sections of the
'SE, which require additional action on your part:
(1)
Section 1.1.1 - Testing for the following valves is already included in the Event V order issued (to be issued in the near future):
853A 878J 853B 877A 867A 878F 8678 8778 878G 878H For the remainder of the valves listed in this section, you must provide, within 90 days of receipt of this letter, the r esults of your consider ation regarding testing.
This should include the 'methods for testing.
If you determine that testing of these valves is unnecessary, you should provide detailed technical justification.
(2)
Section 1.1.6 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, any technical specification changes resulting from the review to which you have
- agreed, and (3)
Section 1.1.8 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, your commitment with regard to incorporation of these modified cold shutdown testing requi.rements.
You should also note that the requirements for full-stroking of check valves 867A, 867B, 878G, and 878J, as discussed. in Sections 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.1.2.
are distinct from the system integrity requirements of the Event Y order discussed above.
Both functional and integrity tests are required.
o Q~
h V~
p g
~~
Wp/jj /81 Sincerely, Dennis M.
Cr utchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing 0
g na
.DL der:dn 4/'
S:
A copy of the Safety Evaluation is enclosed, in addition to a related Notice.
OFFICE/
SURNAME/
BATEP Se frey
........ cc..wjt8 See ne Eyaluation Qsl)JCB
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
closures;..Ql.
t page
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NRC FORM 318116/801NRCM 8240 H mith 4/ZZ/81 I
DCheney 4/4/81 MEB:DE
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
RBosn 4/9+/8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AD-SA:DL
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
GCLainas 4/
/81 C/ORB¹5:DL DCrutchfiel.d 4/
/81
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
- LJSGFO: 1980-329 824 i
~~
~
l so
$'p" )
s~,
h
yy,8 RE0g'>
~r o
v 0
(N
++*++
Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-05-050 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 26, 1981 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Mr. Maier:
RE:
INSERVICE VALVE TESTING PROGRAM - GINNA We have reviewed the inservice testing program - valves for the R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
This program is effective for the 120 month interval between January 1981 and December 1990 and is based upon your submittals dated April 6, 1977, August 4, 1977, October 31, 1977, November 30, 1978, November 15, 1979, September 4, 1980, January 30, 1981, and March 2, 1981.
The approval of your inservice testing program-pumps and inservice inspec-tion program will be the subject of a separate letter and license amendment, respectively.
The enclosed Safety Evaluation (SE) discusses those items for which relief has been granted.
The relief allows postponement of certain examinations and imposes alternative examinations, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) of the Commission's regulations.
We are granting this relief and imposing alternative examinations based on our review of the information you submitted to support your determinations that certain ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Code requirements would be impractical for your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the conTnon defense and
- security, and will otherwise be in the public interest.
In making this determination, we have given due consideration to the burden that could result if these requirements were imposed on your facility.
We have determined that the granting of this relief from ASME Code require-ments does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor.
an increase in power level and will not result in any significant enviro'n-mental impact.
We have concluded that the granting of this relief is insignificant from the standpoint of 'environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR
$51.5(d)(4) that neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need to be prepared in connection with this action.
Nr. John E. Maier May 26, 1981 The relief does not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Commission safety review of the facility.
It does not involve a significant increase in the probability or conse-quences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and, therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
We have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action and that the issuance of this relief will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The relief from ASNE Code requirements granted by the SE shall remain in effect until specifically revoked by the NRC or until the end of the 120 month period which began January 1, 1981.
Your attention is directed toward the following specific sections of the SE, which require additional action on your part:
(1)
Section 1.1.1 - Testing for the following valves is already included in the Event V order issued April 20, 1981.
853A 853B 867A 867B 878G 878J 877A 878F 877B 878H For the remainder of the valves listed in this section, you must provide, within 90 days of receipt of this letter, the results of your consideration regarding testing.
This should include the methods for testing.
If you determine that testing of these valves is unnecessary, you should provide detailed technical justification.
(2)
Section 1.1.6 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, any technical specification changes resulting from the review to which you have
- agreed, and (3)
Section 1.1.8 - You should provide, within 120 days of receipt of this letter, your commitment with regard to incorporation of these modified cold shutdown testing requirements.
Mr.'ohn E. Maier May 26, 1981 You should also note that the requirements for full-stroking of check valves 867A, 867B, 878G, and 878J, as discussed in Sections 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.1.2, are disti nct from the system integrity requirements of the Event V order discussed above.
Both functional and integrity tests are required.
A copy of the Safety Evaluation is enclosed, in addition to a related Notice.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
Safety Evaluation and Notice Dennis M. Crutchfield, ief Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosures:
See next page
'Mr. John E. Maier May 26, 1981 cc w/enclosures:
Harry H. Voigt, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire
- Avenue, N.
W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second F 1 oor Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New York E nergy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontari o 107 Ridge Road'est
- Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.
NRC 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Criteria and Standards Division Office, of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
E I S COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natura 1 Res ources De fense Counci 1, Inc.
1725 I Street, N.
W.
Suite 600 Washington, D. C.
20006 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Att'orney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047