ML20023B914
| ML20023B914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A491 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305090160 | |
| Download: ML20023B914 (10) | |
Text
L
..u._..
- .N %.,
L.
UNITED sT/ TEs
[ j..- [ ]
NUAEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
r.'ASHlf43 TON. C. c. 20555
- 3.C
- 5, p '-
- 9..a..t.,
's,
/
S A:ETY EVALUAT:0:. EV THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR NEACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO REQUESTS FOR RELIEF FROM INSEc.VICE INSPECTION REOUIREMENTS AND SUPPORTING AMENDt1ENT'NO. 77 TO i
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT C0!!PANY ARKANSA5 hUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO.30-313 Introduction By letter dated October 19, 1977, as supplemented by letter dated December 15, 1978, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the licensee or AP&L) requested amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 (ANO-1).
The amendment would revise the language for the TSs relating to inservice inspection requirsrhents of safety class componentr to confom with the Codes and Standards Rule,10 CFR 50.55a. This rule requires in part that inservice inspection of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and, Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda except where specific written relief is granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission).
The licensee also submitted a proposed inservice inspection progran descrip-tion and requested relief from certain Code requirements, determined to be impractical to perform on ANO-1 during the inspection interval.
Discussion The proposed TS 4.2.2 conforms to the Codes and Standards Rule 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
The proposed TS 4.2.2 for AH0-1 states that inservice examination of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission.
Certain requirements of later editions and addenda of Section XI are impractical to perform on older plants because of the plants' design, component geometry, and materials of construction. Th us,
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) authorizes the Commission to grant relief from those requirements upon making the necessary findings.
By letters dated October 19,1977 and December 15, 1978, AP&L submitted its ins'ervice.in,spection program revisions, or additional information related k
to requests for relief from certain Code requirements, determined to be
~
impractical to perform on ANO-1 during the inspection interval. The program is lasbTon the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda of Section XI
~
?Ohbf3 PDR gr-~.~ r
.g.
12.. _........ _
A!;G-1 of the ASi1E Code and covers the remainder of the 120-month inspection interval which ends December 19, 1984.
Evaluation On the basis that the proposed TS 4.2.2 does conform to 10 CFR 50.55a(g),
we find it acceptable.
.o Requests for relief from the requirements of Section XI which haie been determined to be impractical to perform have been reviewed by our contractor, Science Applications, Inc. The contractor's evaluations of the licensee's requests for relief and his recommendations are pre-sented in the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER).
We have reviewed the TER and agree with the evaluations and reconmendations.
A summary of our determinations is presented in the following tables:
. M d.
M,
l l
l 4
i
{
- y..
l0 I
lP'
_. ~.
(
- i,
I SEUS QU d
d ET e
1 e
1 RA t
t T
n e
n e
FS a
t
. a t
E r
o r
o I
G N
G N*
L E
R c
i e fl e
rb c oa cc
%l e
EN v
iaf 0a ny i
rf ol 1 r ea VO rdr EDII t ne t r a
e gm EETT e et eudv lhs n
mSnr a p' f n SSAA nri u
ee uiM e
oo NONN EPRI ha ld t
srD n
i COEM o ef ontn i eR o
tt IRTA VNo VaaI VPC N
l a LPLX un AE siem h
d ra t
0 ee x
cgn
.d 0
ccl c
ae ino n
1f i aus i
rfdl r
se D
rim
,e h
,ol t
a t rea t
av ED t r-I l e u 0 d yd n d d v euhv l
e i
R0 mD4 obnoonr mS cr a
m-nt l
2miE e u
Se u
u oa 5
UI u
i d
t s
l i n l%tr%o 5 s e 0 f G e y.t
- r 1
QE l
n ont n i
o tr N
EM E
R V21 p5o4PbI VaaI V
V ae N
nt 1
O ilma P
A a
E M
- t -
ee i'
,l t8 xd L
O B
C E
A D
o g
rul 1
s T
1 D
ds Td en eBA do
,Y ep OE en
- n ri g f
S TN eeso eE unn ml :AA t o S
I l dui l
s sii uas00&
nr A
AM ziit zed sat cid11 ep L
EA zsd c zfl etl rtl -
1 m
C RX onae oae reo ine1 2 -
ge AE NI RS NSW PRB CeWBBW uh at n
d at d
o o
o R
m s
n on RT o
s e
oe t
ON r
,l s
l i
r i r f
E ol gF e o
n P
t o dI MN t e n
l rea cCd e
EO cs i ez t vh hee o
t TP as prz nic grjdo c
SM ee ioo ore 'iunnl es YO RV PCN CDM sI aF je l
l br SC uu sl i
ea bf ye T
av 0A 0C 2
me 5
e 0
F G
J sl.
2
- M t sd iA B
B B
B n
e l
el m WX nar I E omo prf mer oh e Ct p 0
0O 1
6N 1
2 6
1 5
e
- M 4
t BE WT 1
l 1
4 o
II 0
B B
8 N
9' i
I '
1 I
l
y o
TABLE 1 i
CLASS 1 COMP 0t(ENTS -
(Continued) l LICEt[SEE i
PROPOSED IWB-2600 IWil-2500 SYSTEl1 OR AREA TO DE' REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUEST ITEM NO.
EXAM. CAT.
COMP 0tiENT EXAMINED MEll10D EXAMINATION STATUS i
B4.9 B-K-1 Piping Integrally -
Volumetric Surface Granted Welded Support Fillet Welds e
i i
O
+
e' t
9 e
0 e
a
^- '
pg I
s k,-
3
~/j.
TABLE 2
,e 2!'j CLASS 2 COMPONENTS LICENSEE PROPOSED c
' SYSTEM OR AREA TO BE REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUEST IWC'-2600 IWC-2520:
.IITEM NO.
EXAM. CAT.
' COMPONENT EXAMINED METIIOD EXAMINATION STATUS i
i le 1
8 e
[NO RELIEF REQUESTS]
t I
e r
+
t e
F s'
4 o
0 0
h e e a-g a
u
=
4
.-ed N
l t
OW DW C' D WH M<
- u. W W
wW W
M yo s*
WcMm W W H 1--
DW<<
ZcZZ W c M a-a WOWE w m >- <
W O,. W X
<W OWc 2O
.1-W=
M Ct-s-
CY W Z
WE e
W
=
z f*')
O L
W E
J o
g y
C C
(**J C
m CW W
D
&Z
>=
m W
CE W
J W<
D v
MX CT
<W W
=
W e-v W
MW W
OZ W
EZ O
Wo
=
>= :
w WE
>- o WW e
C<
NU m
N I E U<
3X
-= W C
e OC LD Z N
j i E i
uW 3>-
m -<
Me
=.
-e 0
l l
m,q ms vg -
w -
sn
-***'m
E s'
s TABLE 4 PRESSURE TESTS IWC-5000 &
IWD-5000 TEST LICENSEE PROPOSED RELIEF SYSTEM OR PRESSURE ALTERNATE REQUEST COMPONENT RE0UIREMENT s-TEST PRESSURE STATUS <
9
[NO RELIEF REQUESTS]
l e.*.
m _
l l
l
=-
m
,mw
-+w+*e,
/%
anm s
w,pw s,
y
ll TABLE 5 ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION TECHNIQUE
+-
LICENSEE PROPOSED SYSTEM OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUEST COMPONENT REQUIREMENT EXAMINATION METHOD STATUS No Relief Requests s.
c 4
. me e e* O e.
e Ob I
o ra t y.
8
~,-:
,, - ~. ~ -.
pyyegr.,, --
.u..
___m TABLE 6 GENERAL RELIEF REQUESTS ALL CLASSES / COMPONENTS RELIEF SYSTEM OR LICENSEE REQUEST COMPONENT REQUIREMENT ALTERNATE STATUS c
3
[NO RELIEF REQUESTS]
.1-e m. e r
I l
I I
l.
l-7f*.*YY.*"l"***-
I.
o ANO-1 s-Based on tl e review summarized, we conclude that relief granted from 3
the examination requirements and alternate methods imposed through this document give reasonable assurance of the piping and component pressure boundary and support structural integrity, that granting relief where the Code requirements are impractical is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and i
security, and is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden that could result if they were imposed on the facility.
Environmental Consideration r<
g We have determined that the amendment and granting relief from specific ASME Section XI Code requirements do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts hor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this is an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 851.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declara-tion and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with this action.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations dis'c'ussed above, that:
(1) because this. action doesinot involve a si.fniff_ cant 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. this action 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 Commissio.n's regulations and the issuance of this action will not'be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 18,1983
~
The following NRC personne1 have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Guy S. Vissing, George Johnson.
l 1e l
,.m..
..