ML18153B252
| ML18153B252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1995 |
| From: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TAC-M89085, NUDOCS 9503170070 | |
| Download: ML18153B252 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555--0001 March 8, 1995
SUBJECT:
SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 - INTERIM RELIEF OF THE THIRD IO-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TAC NO. M89085)
Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:
The NRC staff has perfonned a preliminary review of relief requests RR-5 and RR-6 in the Surry, Unit No. 2 Inservice Inspection (ISi) Program for the third IO-year interval.
You submitted this program by letter dated March 18, 1994.
This correspondence addresses only two of the relief requests, RR-5 and RR-6, in the March 18, 1994, submittal as supplemented November 28, 1994.
Relief request RR-5 requests relief from the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code IWA-5250(a)(2) which states: "if leakage occurs at a bolted connection, the bolting shall be removed, VT-3 visually examined for corrosion, and evaluated in accordance with IWA-3100."
The proposed alternative selects only one bolt initially, the bolt closest to the source of the leakage, which is the same as the Code requirements in the 1992 Edition of the ASME Section XI, IWA-5250(a)(2), and if the selected bolt has evidence of degradation, then all other bolting in the connection will be removed and visually (VT-3) examined and evaluated to the Code requirements.
Relief request RR-6 requests relief from Subparagraph IWA-5242(a) of the 1989 Edition of the ASHE Code which requires, for systems borated for the purpose of controlling reactivity, removal of insulation from pressure-retaining bolted connections for visual examination VT-2 conducted in conjunction with system leakage tests performed prior to plant startup.
We have not yet completed our final review nor issued our final Safety Evaluation (SE).
However, based upon our review of relief request RR-6, we have determined that certain Code requirements are impractical and would be a burden on the licensee; therefore, interim relief for relief request RR-6 is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). Relief request RR-6 is granted for the systems inside the containment with the following conditions:
for the system pressure test associated with plant startup, the system shall be held at nominal operating pressure for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> for insulated systems and 10 minutes for noninsulated systems before performing the VT-2 visual examination. This interim relief is being granted for the Unit 2 refueling outage, which cOD1Denced February 1995, with the understanding that modifications to the insulation on selected areas will be performed to make this relief request unnecessary for any future Unit 2 refueling outages.
---~~---~
9503170070--950308 ----- ~--
PDR ADOCK 05000281 P
PDR 150110
3 With respect to relief request RR-5, which contains a proposed alternative examination, we have determined, for the interim,.in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), that the alternative is acceptable.
We are continuing our review of the proposed ISi program.
We have concluded that during the *interim period there is reasonable assurance that the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Si'nce the interim approval does not represent the results of the final program review, the final SE could contain relief request denials. Therefore, you are authorized.to implement your proposed program for relief requests RR-5 and RR-6 as described in the above-cited submittal.
The staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) interim relief for relief request RR-6 is granted and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security. The staff has also concluded that granting this relief is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.
We also find that the proposed alternative provides an acceptable level of quality and safety on an interim basis; therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) the proposed alternative contained in the request for relief request RR-5 is authorized.
This evaluation will terminate upon issuance of our final SE.
Docket No. 50-281 cc w/enclosure:
See next page Distribution "Docket *File
- NRC & Local PDRs PDII-2 RF S. Varga J. Zwolinski D. Matthews B. Buckley E. Dunnington J. Strosnider OGC ACRS (4)
E. Merschoff, RII Sincerely, (Original Signed By L. Raghavan For)
David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OFFICIAL RECORD COPY - DOCUMENT NAME: C:
WPDOCS SURRY SU89085.LTR OFFICE EMCB NAME DATE 3/ 7 /95 j
/ 1 /95
Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Virginia Electric and Power Company cc:
Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. David Christian, Manager Surry Power Station Post Office Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5850 Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, Virginia 23683 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation Post Office Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Conmissioner Office of the Conmissioner Virginia Department of Health P.O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060