ML19323J208
| ML19323J208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1980 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006190391 | |
| Download: ML19323J208 (5) | |
Text
_
.a-9
~E.-
E3?EI
-._ _ I
~
400 Chestnut Street Tower II June 13, 1980 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. L. S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
In the Matter of the Application of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 Enclosed for your review are proposed revisions to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Question 5.9A on the inservice inspection program. These revisions are changes in the request for relief from ASME Section XI (QS.9A - Exceptions 1, 5, 8) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5).
Exceptions 1, 5, and 8 cover third party inspectors, pressure retaining welds in piping, and steam generator nozzles, respectively.
The initial set of requests for relief from ASME Section XI test require-ments (in response to S. A. Varga's letter to N. B. Hughes dated December 6, 1978) was transmitted to S. A. Varga by J. E. Gilleland's letter dated February 14, 1979. Amendment 66 will incorporate these ra"isions into Question 5.9A of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with D. L. Lambert at FTS 857-2581.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.' a r
17'M.' Mills, Mana er Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure ON cc: See page 2 5
///
soos1903*ll
_r
-l 1
e F Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation June 13, 1980 cc:
Mr. C. E. Murphy, Chief (Enclosure)
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II - Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 i
O 9
U Revised by Amendment TABLE Q5.9A-1 EXCEPTION 1 This request for relief from Section XI requirements has been withdrawn.
\\
e e
QS.9A-3
(A'h Revised by Amendment TABLE QS.9A-1 (Continued)
EXCEPTION 5 I.
Components Class 1 and 2 pressure-retaining welds in piping.
II.
Exception Taken Volumetric examination of longitudinal, circumferential, and pipe branch connection welds (examination categories B-F, B-J,C-F, and C-G) l will not be done for all welds from both sides.
III. Justification In some cases it will be impractical to inspect all welds in accordance with Paragraph T-532 of Article 5,Section V, or the ASME code, i e.,
1 nonremovable hanger interference or valve and pump casings adjoining the welds. These welds will be noted on the ultrasonic examination data sheets.
IV.
Testing in Lieu of Section XI Requirements
-In addition to the visual examination performed during system leakage and hydrostatic pressure tests, a "best ef fort" ultrasonic examination will be performed. Where there is interference or proble=s from one direction only, consideration will be given to performing an angle beam examination for 2T + (greater than two wall thicknesses from one edge of weld)'from the accessible side of.the weld in order to examine the entire weld cross section.
W Q5.9A-7 6
A L
.T. v e-Revised by Amendment TABLE Q5.9A-1 (Continued)
EXCEPTION 8 1.
,Comoonents Steam generator nozzle.
II.
Exception Taken Volumetric examination of nozzle inside radius section on the primary side (examination category B-D) will not be made.
III. Justification Each steam generator consists of two integrally cast nozzles. The present capability of ultrasonic testing is not sufficient to examine case material of this thickness and achieve meaningful results.
(See figure QS.9-7)
IV.
Testing in Lieu of Section XI Requirements None.
1 1
I i
~
l QS.9A-10
...