ML18139C087
| ML18139C087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1982 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139C086 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211010378 | |
| Download: ML18139C087 (5) | |
Text
e 7590-01
- I.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-280 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NOTICE OF GRANTING OF RELIEF FROM ASME CODE SECTION XI INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted relief from certain requirements of the ASME Code,Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) for the Surry Power Station, Unit No. 1 located in Surry County, Virginia.
The ASME Code requirements are incorporated by reference into the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.
This relief allows the licensee to replace al 1/2 inch drain valve upstream of the main ste~m trip valve.without performing a hydrostatic test for the entire steam generator and a considerable portion of.the main steam piping.
A leakage test will be performed instead.
The request for this granting of relief complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the Evaluation of Relief Request.
I The Commission has determined that the_ granting of this relief will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR
§51.5{d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be *prepared in connection with this action.
/.--------~-~- --~-
8211010378 821001
-. -~
PDR ADOCK 05000280 (3
\\... ~-.
- it J For further details with*respect to this action, see (1} the request for relief dated September 15, 1982; (2) the letter-to the licensee dated Qctoper 1, 1982; and (3) the Commission's related Evaluation of Relief Request.
These items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H _Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
20555, and at the Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsbu_rg, Virginia 23185.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing.
- Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this l,st day of October 1982 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ope~:tin9 R~~~~~~No. 1 Division of Licensing I
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUEST FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION HYDROSTATIC TEST REQUIREMENTS Introduction By letter dated September 15, 1982, the Virginia Electric and Power Company, which is the licensee of Surry Power Station Unit 1 with Facility Operating
- License Number DPR-32, requested relief from the 1977 ASME Code Section XI with approved Addenda through_ Winter 1978 Section XI requirements for hydrostatic test on a drafo line off the main steam line containing two l 1/2 inch repair welds.
Discussion The two repair welds will be made in a planned replacement of a 1 l/2 inch drain valve during the upcoming-maintenance outage in October 1982.
The licensee indicated that the required hydrostatic test is difficult and impractical to perform because the line containing the two repair welds cannot be isolated from the steam generator and a large portion of main steam piping.. The licensee proposed to perform the following tests to ensure the integrity of the two l 1/2 inch repair welds:
- 1.
Visual examination.
2; Liquid penetrant examination.
- 3.
Inservice leakage test at hot shutdown condition at 125% of normal operating pressure.
In a conference call on September 24, 1982, the licensee also provided NRC staff the following additional information:*
- 1.
The referenced two 2 1/2 inch repair welds are socket welds.
- 2.
For the system to be tested, the normal system operating pressure is about 775 psi.
- 3.
The pressure of the tested system at hot shutdown.condition is approxi-mately 1005 psi and the corresponding temper~ture is about 480°F.
- 4.
The holding time and examination for the proposed inservice leakage test will be identical to that required by Section.XI for hydrostatic testing.
- 5.
The lowest pressure setting of the safety or relief valves for the system to be tested is 1085 psi.
- 6.
There is no fracture toughness requirement for the 1 1/2 inch carbon steel welds and pipes.
- ,, l e Evaluation The major difference in the test requirements between the Section XI required hydrostatic test and the licensee 1 s proposed inservice leakage test at hot shutdown on the system containing the two 1 1/2 inch repair welds is in the level of the hydrostatic test pressure. Article IWC-5000 of Section XI in Winter 1977 Addenda requires the hydrostatic test to be performed at a pressure at least 1.25 times the system pressure for systems with design temperature above 200°F.
- Therefore, based on the information provided by the licensee, the code required hydrostatic test should be performed at a pressure of 1356 psi (1.25 x 1085 psi). Although, the pressure of the licensee proposed inservice leakage test at hot shutdown is only 1005 psi, which is 351 psi below the code required hydrostatic test pressure, the proposed test pressure (1005 psi) is substantially higher than the normal operating pressure (775 psi) of the tested system and is only about 80 psi below the lowest safety or relief valve$
pressure setting. Therefore, we consider that the licensee proposed inservice leakage test at hot shutdown is an acceptable method to determine the structure integrity of the l 1/2 inch repair welds.
The licensee also proposed to perform liquid penetrant and visual examinations on the two 1 1/2 inch repair socket welds. Since the performance of volumetric examination on socket welds is not practical, we have determined that the licensee 1s proposed liquid penetrant and visual -examinations are adequate in identifying surface flaws on the subject socket welds.
Based on the above evaluation, we have concluded that relief from the code Section XI requirements for the hydrostatic test of the system containing the two 1 1/2 inch repair welds is justifiable because the licensee proposed tests of liquid penetrant examination, visual examination and the inservice leakage*
test at the hotshut down will provide adequate insurance of integrity.
Based on our review, we conclude that the current requirements are impractical, that this relief is authorized by -law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in* the public interest consid-ering the burden on the licensee if the relief is not granted. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.58a(g)(6)(i}, the requested relief is granted.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that this relief does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result.in any significant environmental. impact.
Having made this *determination, we have further concluded that the relief involves ~n action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and; pursuant to 10 CFR §51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact. appraisal need not be. prepared in connection with the granting of this relief.
'I I
.I e Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the relief does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the relief does not involve a significant hazards consideration, {2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this relief will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
October 1,.1982