ML18054B621
| ML18054B621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1988 |
| From: | Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-61349, TAC-69084, NUDOCS 8803090173 | |
| Download: ML18054B621 (2) | |
Text
...
e UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
WASHINGTON, 0. c. 2osss Oocl<et Nos. 50-334
/
50_-4,y
~r. J. O. Sieb7r: Vice President Ououesne Light Company Nuclear Operations Post Office ~ox 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077
Dear Mr. Sieber:
February 29, 1988
SUBJECT:
~EAVER VALLEY UNITS l AND 2. -
1-f{STRUMEHTEO INSPECTION TECHNIQUE ( IIT) <TAC* ~O. 61349)
By letter dated January 15, 1988, you provided to us follow-up documentation on a phone*conversation held on January 6, 1988, between your contractor, HAFA Internationar and the NRC staff. The purpose of your letter is to notify us of your intention to use IIT in the following ways:
- l.
Implementation over the next ten-year interval,
- 2.
Steam generator hydro-testing during Mode s*an~ subsequent plant heatup,
- 3.
Repair and reolacement testing on feedwater*elbow, safety injection and seal injection filter valves,* and
- 4.
Ten-minute holding time in Heu of two-hour on partially insulated lin~s on t~e safety injection and component cooling water systems.
Our approval f'or your use of IIT at Beaver V~1Jey_..Un1ts 1 and 2 were documented in letters dated Ha.v 15, 1986 and ~ber 2. r9S-tr respectively.
We have reviewed your,1anuary 15, 198A letter and found your application of IIT acceptable. This review was performed by Hr, G. Johnson.
Sincerely,
. s-:V..
~-~.
P S. Tam, Project ~a.nager Project 01 rectora te I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II cc: See next page
L\\"
"'Joo:-.
Topical Report HAFA ~
(P-A) 2.0 SCOPE ANO
SUMMARY
OF REVI8'/
The information and data contained in the topical report were presented '
to demonstrate that the Instrumented Inspection Technique is capable of detecting and locating external system lea~ge, intersystem valve leakage, reducing personnel exposure to radiation, detecting small leaks, elimi-.
nating overpressurization of lower pressure rated piping and components, and is therefore a suitable alternative to Section XI requirements for hydrostatic tests.
The staff's review considers the Code requirements and the impracticalities associated with implementation of the require-ments; and application of the Instrumented.Inspection Technique as an alternative.
Although the Topical report refers to hydrostatic testing, its intent is to apply to pressure testing in general, i..e., system leakage tests t. system functional tests~ system hydr.ostatic tests I and systell!
pneumatic tests..J"he staff's review therefore encompasses pres~ure tests in general.
Based on our review and eva1uation 1 we have conclud~d that sufficient information has been presented to support the conclusion that the Instru~ented Inspection Technique is a suitable alternative for the pressure test requirements of Section XI~ Application of the*alternative method pro vi des added assurance of system and component structura 1 i nteg-rity and 1 eak tightness when compared to conventi ona 1 pressure testing methods.
Implementation of the Instrumented Inspection Technique is not intended to circumvent Section XI Code requirements for pressure tests but to provide an added margin of reliability of the.test results.
The staff finds that the Code requirements, where practical to meet, will be complied with and in situations where the requirements are impractical, the regu-lations will* be followed prior to implementation of the alternative testing method.
- Ho.,,..ever, the Code requirement for the four-hour hold time prior to visual ~xamination of ihsulated systems and co~ponents may be reduced to two hours if the alternative method is utilized.
v