ML19332D409

Requests Schedule for Completion of Secondary Sys Hydrostatic Test,Per 891006 Relief Request,Class 2 Sys Pressure Testing.One Time Granting of Schedular Extension Does Not Affect End Date of Subsequent 10-yr Period

ML19332D409
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	11/27/1989
From:	Hebdon F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
TAC-75058, NUDOCS 8912010160
Download: ML19332D409 (4)

Text

{ Q[ ~

t 1

g O '

(k hh%IG j

jo UNITED STATES'.

'y

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMha!*0!ON

e o

-i "E

WAAHING r0N, D. C. 20566

/'

November 27, 1989

- a is.<

g. Docket No. 50-368 -

i s..

Mr. T. Gene Campbell' L

,Vice President, Nuclear-E'..

4

' Arkansas Power and Light Company i

P. 0. Box-551.

72203 Little Rock,' Arkansas

SUBJECT:

RELIEF: REQUEST-CLASS 2 SYSTEM PRESSURE TESTlhG FOR ARKANSASNUCLEARONE, UNIT 2(ANO-2)(TACNO.'75058)

Thestaffhas.reviewedArkansasPowerandLightCompany's(AP&L's)requestfor relief from certain ASi1E Code-requirements for Class 2 Pressure Testing dated i

October 6, 1989. Specifically, the request addressed the hydrostatic test i

. performed on.the' ANO-2 main steera system on September 25 and 26,1989.

i

' In:accordance with the Technical Specifications, a secondary hydrostatic test was to be performed using steam instead of water at a pressure 1.05-times the desigr.. pressure of the main steam system (1085 psig) at a temperature in excess of 500?F. The test would be run with eight.of the ten code safety valves

. gagged such that the desired pressure could be maintained for the required four

' hour holding time.-

As indicated in your letter, attempts to maintain the' desired pressure of 1160.psig (1.05 times design pressure plus 10 instrument tolerance) were not successful. However,.a maximum pressure'of 1140 psig was maintained at a temperature of about 565*F for a four hour period due to safety-valve leakage and the potential for damaging these valves at a higher pressure. Assuming a nore realistic 0.5% instrument error, AP&L estimates that the actual pressure achieved was 1130 psig.

l

?

Considering the test temperature versus pressure data included in a table in L

ASME Code,Section XI, IWC-5220(b), AP&L maintains that it performed the l

secondary system hydrostatic test at approximately 1.04 times the system L

design pressure rather than the 1.05 value required for a temperature of 500*F. indicated in the Code table.

(This table starts at 100 F. and ends at 500*F.) Nevertheless, AP&L suggests that the pressure-temperature correla-tion may. exist at temperatures in excess of 500 F, and that at 565*F the corresponding pressure requirement would be about 1.02 times design pressure; and therefore, the test results could be considered n ceptable.

Given the extrapolation of the Code data, AP&L contends that the recent test met the inteni. of the Code to challenge the system integrity at pressure stresses greater than design and operation pressure.

In addition, system walkdcwns did not identify any structural integrity leakage.

Based en this iriformation, AP&L requested that NRC grant relief from Article IWC-5000 of Section XI of the ASME Code to accept the September 25 and 26, 1969 test as the first 10-year hydrostatic test cf the secondary system for ANO-E.

Of0I 6912010160 993327 DR I

.p ADOCK 05000368 PDC

p g

s e

j Mr. T.' Gene Campbell '

i

The staff has evaluated the information included in your letter as' well as y

specific testing requirements included in the ASME Code, and hos concurred with

'AP&L's determination that the difference between the pressure attained and the

- required pressure as per the ASME Code is an acceptable deviation from requirements for the near term and agrees that the results did not necessitate repeating the test during the refueling outage of ANO-2.

.We have: considered your request for relief from having to repeat the test 3

during this'30 year period and have determined that granting relief is not appropriate in this instance. The Comission grants relief in accordance with i

10-CFR-50.55(a)inthosecaseswherethelicenseeproposesalternativesto testing requirements, where compliance with the ASME Code requirements would p

-result in a hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, or where requirements are considered impractical.

J L

The staff considers that the failure to achieve the required results in the pressure testing of a system is not the basis for granting relief and that the'

-specific test pressure listed in the Code still needs to be achieved.

1 However, the margin of " success" achieved in the ANO-2 secondary system hydrostatic test provides sufficient justification for granting a schedular extension to the end of the first ten year testing period. Accordingly, AP&L should: repeat the test not later than the end of the next regularly scheduled refueling outage (2R8). This one time granting of schedular extension does not effect the end date of the subsequent ten year period, i.e. the next period would end on March 26, 2000.

Please provide within 60 days of receipt of this letter, your schedule for completion of the seccndary system hydrostatic test in accordance with the above extension.

The reporting ar.d/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, CME, clearance is not required ur. der P.L. 96-11.

Sincerely, mib..

l Yr Frederick J. Hebdtn, Director Project Directorate IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

See next page

my E

L i6.4,..

t ilr.

T.~ Gene Canpbelli Arler.sas Power & Light Corrpany Arkansas !!uclear One, Unit 2

+

cc:-

U Mr.:Early Ewing, General Manager, Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager:

Technical Support and Assessment Washington Nuclear. Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Combustion Engineering, Inc.

'P O. Box 608 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite-330 -

Russellville, Arkansas 72801 -

Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Mr. Niel.Carns Director Nuclear Operations Honorable Joe W. Phillips Arkansas l:uclear One.

County Judge of Pope County P.

O'. Box 608 Pope: County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 f1r. Nicholas S.'Reynolds Dishop, Cook, Perce11 & Reynolds

~1400 L Street, ts.W.

Washington, D.C. '20005-3502 i

~

l Regional Administrator, Region-IV U.S.!i:ocicar Ftculatory Corsission Office of Executive Director for Operatier.s L611 Ryen Plazs Drive, Suite-1000 l

Arlir.gton, Texas ~ 76011 j

,e q

(erior Resident Inspector U.S..: Nuclear Regulatory Cor.. mission l' Nuclear Pient Road-Pusse11ville', Arkansas 72801 Ms. Greta Dicus,-Director

.i

-Livisier cf Environmental. Health 1

Prctectior.

Arkansas Departnent of Fealth 4815. West Parkan Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert 6. Borsum i

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear' Power Generation Division

'1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525

.Rockville, Maryland 20852-t f

u

y 3

f i

0.;

4 L

p;p.

1

- LMr.-T. Gene Campbell ' The staff;has eva'uated the information included in your letter as well.as specific testing requirements ~ included in the ASME Code, and has concurred with c

AP&l's determination that the difference between the pressure attained and the

,.g#

required pressure _as per the ASME Code is an acceptable deviation from requirements

'for the near term and agrees that the-results did not necessitate repeating the test during the refueling outage of ANO-2, We have cons'idered your request for ielief-from repeating the test.for the

, final:10 year period.'and have determined that it is not appropriate'in this instance. The Commission grants relief in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(a) in those cases where the licensee proposes' alternatives to testing requirements, where compliance with the ASME Code requirements would result in a hardship or-

-. unusual' difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, or where. requirements are considered-impractical. The staff considers that the~ failure to achieve the. required results in the pressure testing of a system is not the basis for granting relief and that the specific.

test pressure listed in-the Code still needs to be achieved.

However, the margin of " success" achieved in the ANO-2 secondary system hydrostatic test provides sufficient justification for granting a schedular extension to the end of the first ten year testing period. Accordingly, AP&L should. repeat the test not later than the end of the next regularly scheduled.

refuelingoutage.(2R8). This one time granting of schedular extension does not effect the end date of the subsequent ten year period, i.e. the next period m~ ",

would'end on March 26, 2000.

Please provide within 60 days of receipt of this letter, your schedule for 1

completion of the secondary system hydrostatic test in accordance with the above extension.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not. required under P.L. 96-11.

Sincerely, t

Original Signed By Rederick J. Hebdon :

Frederics J. Hebdon, Director Project Directorate IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION h

1. T5ENTTITI7 NRC PDR Local PDR r'D4 Reading o

uG. Holahan ADR4 F. Hebdon P. Noonan OGC.Rockville C. Poslusny E. Jordan ACRS (10)

PD4 Plant File C. Y. Cheng

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES:

L

~ ~ *MTB

~~I5DDD

~~iPM7D

~

I 07D i9M7EA 19D4/PM

....:............:............:............:...........:....,.d.....:....____...:.........

.NAME :PNoonan

CPoslusny:bj:CYCheng

MYoung

FHebc on lDATE:10/30/89

11/07/89

11/09/89

11/20/89

11/r?/89

.0FFit1Al RETD F tDPY Docun'ent Name: ANO-2 RELIEF y

,e wme wm