ML20039G324
| ML20039G324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039G321 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201180057 | |
| Download: ML20039G324 (2) | |
Text
.
[o UNITED STATES
[7 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- $ge E
WASHI'JGTON. D. C. 20555 Q
]
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO USE ASME CODE CASE N-210 TO DELETE HYDROSTATIC TEST LINES ArjD, FITTINGS OF LESS THAN 1 INCH NOMINAL PIPE SIZE RELIEF REQUEST The licensee, in his November 4,1981 submittal has requested Comission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(1) to use the hydrostatic testing exemption in ASME Code Case N-210, " Exemption to Hydrostatic Test After Repairs".
In Code Case N-210 the ASME Committee recommended that component connections, piping and associated valves that are 1 inch nominal pipe size and smaller, be exempted from hydrostatic pressure test following repair.
CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS Based on the requirefrients in 10 CFR Part 50.55a(g)(4) Maine Yankee is presently comitted to performing inservice inspections in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code, as revised to summer of 1975, wherein subsection IWA-4000 requires modifications, replacements, additions and alterations must be hydrostatically tested in accordance with provisions of IWA-5000.
LICENSEE'S BASIS FOR THE REQUEST The licensee will be welding fittings of less than 1 inch nominal pipe size to piping and components. These modifications are required as part of Maine Yankee's post-TMI requirements.
The licensee'has requested relief from the hydrostatic test requirements following modification weld repair because of the difficulty of performing the tests when a small line cannot be isolated from the larger system.
In lieu of this test, the licensee has proposed the use of visual,.
liquid penetrant and an inservice leak check to insure the integrity of these small lines.
_ STAFF's EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS In ASME Code Case N-210, the ASME comittee recommended that component connections, piping and associated valves that are 1 inch nominal pipe size and smaller be exempted from hydrostatic pressure test following repair. This exemption does not app.Ty to repairs which were welded using a half bead weld.ing technique in 1.ieu of a post weld heat treatment.
8201180057 811217 PDR ADOCK 05000309 O
PDR l
-2_
We agree with the ASME Code committee that hydrostatic pressure test of these small diameter pipa modification weld repairs is not necessary and consider the use of visual, liquid penetrant and inservice leak check sufficient examination methods for insuring the integrity of small diameter lines.
Therefore the licensee may be granted relief from hydrostatic pressure test of modification weld repairs to piping and components which are 1 inch nominal pipe size and smaller, provided:
(a) visual, liquid penetrant and an inservice leak check are performed after the modification weld repair.
(b) the welds were not performed using a half bead welding technique in lieu of a post weld heat treatment.
Based on the foregoing, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 50.55a(g)(6)(i),
relief from the specific requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(g)(4),
as discussed above, is authcrized by law and can be granted without endangering life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. We conclude that the public is served by not imposing certain provisions of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(g)(4) which have been determined to be either impractical or would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.'..
Since the amendment applies only to NRC code case approval, it does not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Commission safety review of the facility.
It does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration. We have also concluded that there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action.
Furthermore, we have determined that the granting of these exemptions does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result 6n any significant environ-mental impact. We have concluded that these exemptions would be 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 this action.
Date: DEC 171981 6es e M
O