ML18039A420
| ML18039A420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1998 |
| From: | Sullivan E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18039A421 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-MA1153, NUDOCS 9807090297 | |
| Download: ML18039A420 (6) | |
Text
SIxft REGIri O
so rC OO'
~d O
gO
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205Ri4001 Ouly 1, 1998 MEMORANDUMTO: Frederick J. Hebdon, Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM:
Edmund J. Sullivan, Acting Chief Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
BROWNS FERRY UNIT3 REVISED RELIEF REQUEST 3-ISI-1 Licensee:
TAC No.:
Review Status:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
MA1153 Complete By letter dated February 17, 1998, as supplemented by letter dated June 12, 1998, the licensee submitted revised relief request 3-ISI-1. TVAhad previously submitted the results of its augmented examination of the Browns Ferry Unit 3 (BF3) reactor pressure vessel (RPV) welds which was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2)'. The examination results revealed'fifteen flaws in circumferentially oriented welds that exceeded the acceptance criteria in American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section XI, Paragraph IWB-3500.',
The flaws were evaluated in accordance with ASME Section XI, Paragraph IWB-3600, and found to be acceptable for continued service.
The staffs detailed safety evaluation report (SER) for the weld flaw evaluation was issued by letter dated November 8, 1995.
ASME Code,Section XI, Paragraph IWB-2420(b) requires that flaws identified in components that are found acceptable for continued service shall be reexamined during the next three inspection periods. The original,relief request 3-ISI-1 sought relief from the three successive reexaminations of the Unit 3 RPV circumferential weld flaws. By letter dated July 8, 1997, the NRC staff denied TVA's original request.
The revised request seeks relief for one operating cycle from performing the first reexamination.
The licensee proposes to perform the first
~ ~/
reexamination during the cycle 9 outage (scheduled to begin March 2000) as opposed to the cycle 8 outage (scheduled to begin October 1998).
CONTACT: A. D. Lee, NRR (301),415-2735 RC Bl.K CMlIEIMV Results of the augmented examination of Browns Ferry Unit 3 RPV welds was submitted by letter dated March 6, 1995.
'2I807090297 98070i
'PDR ADOCK 0500029b
0 C
F." 3;> Hebdon<,=,
The provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) allow the Director of the. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to grant relief from the ASME requirements if"the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety."
The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and concludes that the analysis is acceptable for the following reasons:
~
The flaws are subsurface.
The GE flaw evaluation-shows that the maxImum~indication depths" (2a) will not exceed the ASME Code-allowable flaw depths during the'intended service life of the vessel.
The appropriate tooling and equipment are unavailable for use during the cycle 8 outage.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), relief is granted for one operating cycle.
11 Our evaluation is submitted as Attachment 1 and our SALP input is submitted as Attachment 2.
This completes our efforts for TAC NO. MA1153.
Docket Nos.: 50-296 Attachments:
As stated DIS B
0 File Center PUBLIC EMCB RF/PF E. Sullivan A. De Agazio, PM MMayfield SSheng AHiser G:)LEE>BF3 RELF.WPD
- See Previous Concurrence To receive a copy ofthis document, indicate in the box C=Copy w/o attachment/enclosure E=Copy with attachment/enclosure N = No co OFFICE DE:EMCB E
DE:EMCB E
DE:EMCB E
DE:EMCB ALee*
DATE 6/29/98'Elliot" 7/1/98 KWichman" 7/1/98 ESullivan 7/I/98
C
John N. Hannon
,2 h
T e provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) allow the Director of the Office of Nuclear. Reactor Re ulation to grant relief from the ASME requirements if"the proposed alternati/es would pro de an acceptable level of quality and'safety."
t The st ffhas reviewed the licensee's submittal and concludes that, the atysis is acceptable for the fol owing reasons:
I r'
The ws are subsurface.
n
~
The GE w evaluation shows that the maximum indication depths.(2a) willnot exceed the ASME ode-allowable. flaw depths, during t e intended service life of the vessel.
I
~
The appropria tooling and equipment are navailable for use.during the cycle 8 outage.
I Therefore, pursuant to 10 C 50.55a(a)
(i), relief is granted foi'ne operating cycle.
Our evaluation is submitted as At qch ent 1 and our SALP input is submitted as Attachment 2.
This completes our efforts for TAC
. MA1153,.
'ocket Nos.: 50-296 Attachments:
As stated DIST IBU ON File Center PUBLIC EMCB RF/
F E. Sullivan(
A. Deggazio, PM Mfa)field SSheng IAHiser G:iLEEiBF3 RELF.WPD To receive a copy ofthis document, indicate in the box C=Copy w/o attachment/enciosure E=Copy with attachment/enciosure N = No co OFFICE NAME DATE DE:EMCB ALee 6/ii/98 DE:EMCB 8Elliot
. I II98 DE:EMCB KWichman I /98 WR
ik 4I
,+