ML18092B272
| ML18092B272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B271 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609100038 | |
| Download: ML18092B272 (2) | |
Text
,,
(
I Safety Evaluation By the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Introduction Requested Relief From Inservice Inspection Requirements Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 The Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Inservice Inspection (ISI) of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Se~tion XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda, as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) authorizes the Commission to grant relief from ASME Code requirements upon making the necessary findings.
By letter of ~arch 4, 1986, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee)" retiuested relief from the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1975 which the licensee considers to be impractical.
The licensee proposed an alternative test in lieu of that which it considers to be impractical, to pro-vide for the assurance of structural reliability of the associated components.
The licensee's proposal is presented below.
Code Requirement From Which Relief is Requested Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), relief is requested from the requirements of Articles IWC-5200 and IWD-5200 regarding hydrostatic pressure testing of pumps at 1.25 and*l.10 times the system design pressure respectively.
Basis For Relief The ASME Code requirements addressed above do not address the different pres-sure ratings on the suction and discharge sides of pumps, and what is to be used as a boundary interface. Because the pressure ratings of pump suction and discharge piping are different, and because boundary valves do not exist at Salem 1 and 2 to isolate these sections of piping in all cases, testing at the Code required pressure may result in overpressurizing piping systems.
Proposed Alternative Testing The licensee has proposed the following which is included in the 1977 Edition of Section XI and in subsequent editions which have been approved by t_he NRC:
Where the respective system primary pressure ratings on the suction and discharge sides of system pumps differ, the system test boundary shall be divided into two separate boundaries (such as suction side and discharge side test boundaries).
In the case of positive displacement pumps, the boundary interface shall be considered as the pump.
In the case of cen-trifugal pumps, the boundary interface shall be the first shutoff valve on the discharge side of the pump.
8609100038 860904 PDR ADOCK 05000272 G
PDR.
't *.
Evaluation On-site examination of selected pumps and associated discharge p1p1ng, docu-mented in NRC Region I Inspection Report 50-272/86-16/50-311/86-16, and the licensee's submittal of March 4, 1986, were included in this review, and were part of the basis for the staff's evaluation. -The staff agrees with the licensee that the requirements, as stated in the ASME Code Section XI, 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda, require clarification.
We further agree that the proposed alternative testing, as excerpted from subsequent editions of Section XI which have been approved by the NRC, provides the clarification necessary for implementation of the requirements regarding pressure testing of pumps.
The staff verified that this relief request is consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a and NUREG-0800 (Standard Review Plan) Chapter 6, Section 6.6 for Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components.
The staff grants the relief as requested by the licensee, and imposes the alternative test as pro-posed by the licensee.
Based on-the*revi.ew summarized herein, the staff concludes that the relief granted, and the alternative testing imposed through this document gives rea-sonable assurance that the acceptable level of quality and safety intended by the ASME Code will be satisfied. Additionally, the staff has concluded that this relief does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, and does not involve a signi-ficant decrease in a safety margin; and that there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reason ab 1 e assurance that the hea 1th and safety of the pub 1 i c wi 11 not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this relief will not be inimical to common defense and security, or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: September 4, 1986
'Principal Contributor:
R. A. McBrearty, Region I