ML20054F861
| ML20054F861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F862 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206180028 | |
| Download: ML20054F861 (2) | |
Text
.
EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUEST SURRY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 AND NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 RELIEF REQUEST FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION HYOR0 STATIC TEST REQUIREMENTS Introduction By letter dated December 29, 1981, the Virginia Electric and Power Company which is the licensee of Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, with Facility Operating License Numbers DPR-32, DPR-37, NPF-4 and NPF-7 respectively, requested relief from the 1974 ASME Code Section XI requirements for inservice inspection hydrostatic tests contained in Articles IWA, IWB, IWC and IWD 5000. The licensee proposed that the requirements in the source articles of the 1977 edition of ASME Section XI with approved addenda through sunner 1979 be applied at Surry and North Anna Power Stations.
Evaluation The major differences in the requirements of inservice inspection hydro-static tests between the 1974 edition of ASME Section XI and that of the 1977 edition with approved addenda through 1979 summer are:
(1) Test holding time - For the areas which are exposed, the 1974 edition of Section XI requires the hydrostatic test temperature and pressure to be maintained for a minimum of four hours; whereas in the 1977 edition with approved addenda, the test temperature and pressure are required to be maintained for a minimum of ten minutes and for such additional time as may be necessary to conduct the examination.
(2) Test temperature - The 1974 edition of ASME Section XI requires a hydrostatic test temperature not less than 100'F; whereas in the 1977 edition with approved addenda, the minimum test temperature is specified only for system components made of ferritic materials.
~
8206180028 820607 gDRADOCK 05000280 PDR
. For the required hydrostatic test holding time, we consider that' maintaining the hydrostatic test temperature and pressure for a minimum period of ten minutes is a long enough time to discover any leakage in the system where the total areas are directly visible. The minimum test time of four hours is intended for insulated areas or areas not directly visible and is considered overly conservative when applied to areas directly visible.
The minimum hydrostatic test temperature was established to meet the require-ments specified by fracture prevention criteria especially in preventing the brittle fracture of ferritic materials. For components made of austenitic-materials, the brittle fracture transition temperature is typically far below the ambient temperatures. Therefore, we consider that heating components made of austenitic materials to 100 F for hydrostatic test is not necessary.
In view of the NRC approval of the 1977 edition of ASME Section XI with addenda through Summer 1979 and our technical evaluation described above, we conclude that the licensee's proposal to apply the inservice inspection hydrostatic test requirements in the 1979 edition of ASME Section XI with addenda through Summer 1979 is acceptable.
Based on our review, we conclude that the current requirements are impractical, that this relief is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden on the licensee if the relief is not granted.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), the requested relief is granted.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that this relief does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the relief involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of enviornmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the granting of this relief.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the relief does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the relief does not involve a signif-icant 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 Ccmmission's regulations and the granting of this relief will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
June 7,1982 9