ML18009A827
| ML18009A827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18009A826 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103070097 | |
| Download: ML18009A827 (6) | |
Text
~
~
~Pg RECI P0 0O f
/p +w*e+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OF THE FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION RELIEF RE UEST CAROLINA POWER 5 LIGHT COIIPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-400
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Technical Specification 4.0.5 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, states that the surveillance requirements for inservice inspection and testing of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Class I, 2, and 3
(ASME Code) components shall be applicable as follows:
Inservice Inspection of ASIDE Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASIDE Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g),
except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that conformance with an examination requirement of Section XI of the ASHE Code is not practical, information shall be submitted to the Commission in support of that determination; and a request made for relief from the ASNE Code requirement.
After evaluation of the determination, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i),
the Commission may grant relief and may impose alternative requirements that are determined to be authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed.
In a letter dated January 30, 1989, the licensee, Carolina Power 5 Light
- Company, submitted Supplement I to Request for Relief R2-001.
In a letter dated Apri 1 25, 1990, the licensee submitted Supplement 2 to Request for Pelief R2-001.
The staff, with technical assistance from its contractor, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), has evaluated the revised request for relief for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, first 10-year inspection interval.
9i03070097 9
00+400 PDR P
(
o
~
~
~ I 1
~
~ 2.0 EVALUATION OF SUPPLEMENTS 1
AND 2 OF RELIEF REQUEST R2-001 Request for Relief R2-001 was submitted on January 29, 1988, as a part of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan for the first ten-year interval.
The ISI Plan and this relief request were approved by the staff on September 30, 1988.
Supplement 1 (submitted January 30, 1989) adds three additional Class 2
welds and Supplement 2 (submitted April 25, 1990) adds one additional Class 2 weld to Request for Relief R2-001.
These additional welds are listed below.
Weld Number Exam. Category/
Item Number Required Examinations Examination T Achieved I I-BD-011BD-Ir -305 II-MS-001MS-FW-284 II-MS-001MS-SW-A3 II-MS-007MS-FW>>563 C-C5.11 Aug.
C-F/C5.21 C-F/C5. 21 C-F/C5.21 (Aug.)
Sur ace Vol. 5 Surf.
Vol. 5 Surf.
Vol. 5 Surf.
86 Sur 100% Vol. 5 90% Surf.
100% Vol. 5 90% Surf.
67% Vol. 5 100% Surf.
As stated in Supplement 1, during the first refueling outage, the need for relief from the required surface examinations for three additional welds was identified.
Obstructions that were not encountered during the preservice inspection (PSI) examinations of these welds prevented a
100%
examination of the welds.
Since the PSI examinations, pipe supports, structural
- braces, and cable tray supports have been installed that interfere with the Code-required surface examination.
Supplement 2 stated that, during the second refueling outage, the need for relief from the required volumetric examination for one additional weld was identified.
Obstructions that were not encountered during the PSI examination of this weld prevented a
100% examination of the weld.
Since the PSI exaoiinations, structural steel has been installed that interferes with the Code-required volumetric examination.
The volumetric and surface examinations (as indicated above) of these welds are impractical to perform to the extent required by the Code because of piping supports and/or structural obstructions not permitting accessibility for the examinations.
A significant percentage of the Code-required examination has been performed.
Compliance with the Code requirements would place a burden on the licensee because of the inaccessibility of the examination sites.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the limited Section NI volumetric and/or surface examinations provide reasonable assurance of the continued inservice structural integrity.
Therefore, relief is granted as requested for the four welds listed in Supplements 1
and 2 of Request for Relief R2-001.
(
L'
3.0 CONCLUSION
Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) requires that components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice requirements, set forth in applicable editions of ASME Code,Section XI, to the extent practical within the limitations of design,
- geometry, and materials of construction of the components.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee determined that conformance with certain Code requirements is impractical for the facility and submitted supporting information.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and has concluded that these are cases where relief can be granted as requested.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i),
the staff concludes that the requirements of the Code are impractical and relief may be granted for the four additional welds listed in Supplements 1 and 2 of Request for Relief R2-001.
Such relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise'in the public interest.
This relief has been granted giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.
Dated:
February 28, 1991 Pr inci al Contributor:
D. Smith
0 4.
~
~
47 Il