ML20059N794

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Technical Evaluation Rept on First 10-Yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan,South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Unit 2
ML20059N794
Person / Time
Site: South Texas STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 06/30/1990
From: Beth Brown, Mudlin J
EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20059N773 List:
References
CON-FIN-D-6022 EGG-MS-8964, EGG-MS-8964-01, EGG-MS-8964-1, NUDOCS 9010170299
Download: ML20059N794 (18)
v • d • e


Text

. . . _ _ - . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . ._ ..._.. - --_ - . - _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _____. _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ -

i-

. l

~

EGG-MS 8964 l

1 4

r I

i t  !

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE  ;

FIRST 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN: f HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, -!

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2, l DOCKET NUMBER 50 499 ,

t

[

I

8. W. Brown  ;

J. D. Mudlin Published June 1990 i Idaho National Engineering Laboratory-EG&G Idaho -Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-I

'i Prepared for:  :

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission - .

,i Washington, D.C. 20555 .,

under-DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 l, FIN No. D6022 (Project-:5)- 'i i

1 1

yk '

C l

.  :. -. . . - . - ~ . . .- . . = . . - . . _ -. .-. .

'-e .

. . ABSTRACT This report presents the results of the. evaluation of the South Texas  !

. Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10 year interval l inservice inspection (ISI) program plans, submitted June 15, 1989, and the l requests for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) i Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirements that the Licensee l has determined to be impractical, submitted May 11, 1989. The South Texas ,

Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10-year interval ISI j program plans are evaluated in Section 2 of this report. The ISI program  !

plans are evaluated for.(a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda i of Section XI, (b)_ acceptability of examination sample, (c) correctness'of  !

the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and

{

(d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the Nuclear -

Regulatory Comission (NRC) review before granting an operating license.

The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.

l l

i i

?

4 t

-)

s j

?

This work was funded under: .,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission FIN No. D6022, Project 5 Operating Reactor Licensing Issues Program,

Review of ISI for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components l3

t

{ .

. .e SUP9ERY b

The Licensee, Houston Lighting and Power Company, has prepared the South  !

Texas Project Electric Generating Station,' Unit 2, first:10-year interval l inservice inspection (ISI) program plans to meet the requirements of the i 1983 Edition, Summer 1983 Addenda of the ASME Code Section XI except that ]

the extent of examination for Code Class 2 piping welds.has been determined J s

by ASME Code Case N 408 as approved for use by Regulatory Guide 1.147. The '

first 10 year interval began June 19, 1989 and ends-June 19, 1999.  ;

1 .I j

The following South Texas Project Electric' Generating Station, Unit 2, documents were reviewed: Inservice Inspection Plan for the First Inspection ,

Interval, First 10-Year Interval Long-Term Inservice Examination. Plan.(two i volume set),. and the Inservice Inspection Examination of Component- -

Supports. Included in the review were requests for relief from the ASME  !

Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be  !

impractical for the first 10-year interval.  ;

, Based on the review of the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, l

Unit 2, first 10-year interval ISI program plans and the recommendations' for -

granting relief from the ISI-examination requirements that have been '

determined to be impractical, it is concluded-that the South Texas Project +

Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10-year interval ISI program I plans are acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).. '

t 4

?

iii  !

, . .- = . . . - - .

l l o ... l

. CONTENTS

'l ABSTRACT ............................................................... ii

SUMMARY

................................................................ iii l i

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1

]

2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN .................... 3  :

i 2.1 Documents Evaluated ............................................. 3  !

2.2 Compl i ance wi th Code Requi rements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 j i

2.2.1 Compl iance with Applicable Code Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2.2 Acceptability of the Examination Sample ..................... 4  ;

P 2.2.3 Exclusion Criteria .......................................... -4 1

I

?

2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments ........................... 5 l l 2.3 Conclusions ..................................................... 5 l

3. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS ...................................... 6 3.1 Cl a s s 1 C ompone n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 l 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (No relief requests) f 3.1.2 Pressurizer ................................................. 6' .

3.1.2.1 Request _for Relief RR-ENG-09, Examination

  • Category B H, Item B8.20, Pressurizer Support -

Skirt Weld .............................................. 6 l

3.1.3 Heat Exchangers and Steam Generators (No relief requests) i 3.1.4 Fiping Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) e 3.1.5 Pump Pressure Boundary (Noreliefrequests)-  ;

3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary (No relief requests)' I 3.1.7 General (No relief requests) e 3.2 C l a s s 2 C ompo n e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-i 3.2.1 Pressure Vessels ............................................ 8 3.2.1.1 Request for Relief RR-ENG-08, Examination- '

Category C B, Item C2.22, Steam Generator Main Steam Nozzle Inside Radius Section .................. 8

.r iv 4

.e , - -. . - . . ._, . . . ~ - . _ _ . - - - . . . - , - . . . - - - . . . - . - - . , . . . . . . , _. . - . . . - -

l

s. .

i- .  :

l . .. .- l

! 3.2.2 Piping (No relief requests)  !

3.2.3 Pumps (No relief requests) {

i 3.2.4 Valves (No relief requests) i 3.2.5 General- (No relief requests) l 3.3 Class 3 Components (No relief. requests) 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) i 3.5- General (No relief-requests)  !

4. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 10 l
5. REFERENCES .......................................................... 12 I

-1

(

t t

10 l

ln ,

s 1

i i

V N

- .-,,e . . , , u

l

. \

, J TECHNICAL ElALUATION REPORT ON THE  ;

FIRST 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN: i HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, -

l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2, l DOCKET NUMBER 50 499 l

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Throughout the service life of a water cooled nuclear power facility, 1 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) (Reference 1) requires that components (including 0 supports) that are classified _as American Society of Mechanical Engineers- j l (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 meet the requirements, except the design and access provisions and the preservice  :

l examination requirements, set forth in the ASME Code Section XI, " Rules for l Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,? (Reference 2) to i the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and  ;

materials of construction of the components. This section of the.  :

l regulations also requires that inservice examinations' of components and  !

I system pressure tests conducted during the initial 120 month inspection i interval shall comply with the requirements in the latest' edition and I addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) on the  ;

date 12 months prior to the date of issuance of the operating: license, (

subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The components (including supports) may meet requirements set forth.in subsequent editions  !

and addenda of this Code which are incorporated by reference'in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The Licensee, Houston Lighting and, Power Company,'has'p'repared the .

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10-year interval inservice inspection (ISI) program plans to meet the requirements-of the 1983 Edition, Summer 1983' Addenda of the ASME Code Section XI except e

> that the extent of examination for Class 2 piping welds.has been determined ,

! by ASME Code Case N-408 (Reference 3) as approved'for use by Regulatory l8 Guide 1.147 (Reference 4). The first 10 year interval. began June 19,1989 and ends June 19, 1999.

s As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that certain. ,

Code examination requirements are impractical and requests . relief from them,-

m 9'- --+ch

  • e the licensee shall submit information and justifications to the Nuclear

' ~

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support that determination.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), the NRC will evaluate the licensee's determinations under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5) that Code requirements are

. impractical. The.NRC may grant relief and may impose alternative requirements that are detemined to be authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.

The information in the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10 year-interval ISI program plans, submitted June.15,1989-(References 5, 6 and 1), was reviewed, including the requests for relief j from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical for the first 10 year interval. - The requests for. relief.

were received in a submittal dated May 11, 1989 (Reference 8). The review of the 151 program plans was performed using the Standard Review Plans of NUREG-0800 (Reference 9), Section 5.2.4 " Reactor Coolant Boundary Inservice Inspections and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice Inspection of Class' 2 and 3 Components.'

The South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first'10-year interval ISI program plans are evaluated in Section 2 of this report. The ISI program plans are evaluated for (a). compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, j (c) correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the NRC review before granting an operating license.

e The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report. Unless otherwise stated, references to the Code refer to the ASME Code,Section XI,

.1983 Edition, including Addenda through Summer 1983. Specific inservice-test (IST) programs for pumps and valves are being evaluated in oth3r reports.

l 2 1

. .. 6

2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN i

i This evaluation consisted of a review of the applicable program documents to i determine whether or not they are in compliance with the Code requirements .

i,. and any license conditions pertinent to ISI activities. This section  ;

describes the submittals reviewed and the results of the review.

.. a l

2.1 Documents Evaluated Review has been completed on the following information from the Licensee:

i

(a) Inservice Inspection Plan for the First. Inspection Interval of-the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station - Unit 2, issued June 1989 '

(Reference 5); ,

7 (b) First 10 Year Interval Long-Tem Inservice Examination Plan for the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, (2 volume set) l l dated May 1989 (Reference 6);

(c) Inservice Inspection Examination of Component Supports of South Texas.-

Project Electric Generating Station - Unit 2, First Inspection Interval, dated June 12, 1989 (Reference 7);

i (d) letter,datedMay 11,1989 (Referen:s a), licensee's submittal of the  !

requests for relief for the first 10-year interval; and (e) Letter, dated June 20, 1989 (Reference 9), Licensee's request for approval for use of ASME Code Case N-460.

.2.2 Comoliance with Code Reouirements 2.2.1 Comoliance with Aeolicable Code Editions -

The inservice inspection program plan shall be based on the Code editions-defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55s(b).=- Based on the 3

i

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .-._.__.___.__.---.:__. . . _ . _ . _ . . . , . ___....n.__,2

,e q l

Operating License date of December 16, 1988, the Code applicable to the i l '

first 10-year interval ISI program is the 1983 Edition with' Addenda through Summer 1983. As stated in Section 1 of this report, the Licensee has written the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, f

,. first 10-year interval ISI program plans to meet the requirements of the .]

1983 Edition, Summer 1983 Addenda except that the extent of examination- i for Code Class 2 piping welds has'been determined by ASME Code Case N 408, j

" Alternative Rules for Examination of Class 2 Piping,Section XI, l Division 1." Code Case N-4081s referenced in NRC Regulatory Qide 1.147, .{

Revision 7, as an NRC approved Code case and, therefore, may be used.  !

I l

ASME Code Case N-460,'" Alternative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and.  !

Class 2 Welds," has been reviewed by the'NRC and is considered acceptable for use. This Code Case is being included, without conditions, in  !

Revision 8 of NP.C Regulatory Guide 1.147, which is in the process of final  !

approval _.

, i 2.2.2 Accentab111tv of the Examination Studi s Inservice volumetric, surface, and visual ecaminations shall be performed on ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and their supports using sampling schedules described in Section XI cf the ASME Code and

10CFR50.55a(b). Sample size and weld selection have been implemented in accordance with the Code and 10 CFR 50.55a(b) and appear to be correct. l 2.2.3 Exclusion Criteria t i

The criteria used to exclude components from examination shall be ,

consistent with Paragraphs IWB-1220, IWC-1220, IWC-1230, IWD-1220, and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The exclusion criteria have been applied by the  ;

L, Licensee in accordance with the Code as. discussed in Section II.E of the First 10-Year Interval Long-Term Inservice' Examination' Plan for the SouthL  !

Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, and appear to be-correct. .

] '

. ')

1 l

4 1 1

.J

.....m. . . . . . . - . ~ .._.a...-, . _ - _ _ . . . . - _ . . _ _ , . -.._ ._ ..__. _ - . . . . _ . , . . , , - , - .- 4

1

  • a l 2.2.4 Au=*nted Examination Comitments j

_3 I

In addition to the requirements specified in Section XI of the ASME Code  !

and ASME Code Case N-408, the Licensee has committed to meet the l' inspection requirements contained in the following documents:

l (a) NUREG-0800,- Standa. d Review Plan 3.6.1, " Plant Design for  !

t Protection Against Sostulated Piping Failures in Fluid Systems j Outside Containment' (Reference 10); f (b) IE Bulletin No. 7917, " Pipe Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water - l Systems at PWR Plants" (Reference 11); .

(c) IE Bulletin No. 88-08, " Thermal' Stresses in Piping Connected to  ;

RCS"(Reference 12); '

(d) Regulatory Guide 1.14. Revision 1, " Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity"(Reference 13); *

(e) Regulatory Guide 1.65, Revision 0, " Materials and Inspection for '

Reactor Vessel Closure Studs" (Reference 14); and (f) Regulatory Guide 1.150, Revision 1, " Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds During Preservice and. Inservice Examinations" '

(Reference 15).-

  • i These' inspection requirements are being met as outlined-in Sections III.D and III.E of the First 10-Year Interval Long-Tern Inservice Examination [

Plan for the South. Texas Project-Electric' Generating Station, Unit.2. 't i

2.3 Conclusions lt Based on the' review of the documents listed above, it is concluded that the South Texas Project' Electric Generating Station Unit 2 first 10-year  !

interval ISI program plans, as submitted ' June 15, 1989, . are ~ acceptable and i in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).

5 >

. , , . - . ..,,.,,m, ...,~7,--.,,,h - _ ,, , , #._..-,,,,,-w..a,.~ .. '5m..... .- J , _ . . , ,,m5. , . . . , , . . -

.c ,

. .? .

3. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS The requests for relief from the ASME Code requirements that the Licensee has determined to be impractical for the first 10-year inspection intarval

. are evaluated in the following sections.

3.1 Class 1 Components 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (No relief requests) 3.1.2 Pressurizer 3.1.2.1 Raouest for Relief RR-ENG 09. Examination Cateaory B-H.

11,3g,,58.20. Pressurizer Succort Skirt Wald Code Reauirteeni: Section XI, Table IWB 2500 1, Examination Category B H, Item b8.20 requires 100% of the weld length of Pressurizer integrally welded attachments to be surface or volumetrically examined, as applicable, as defined by Figures IWB-2500-13. -14, or -15.

Licensee's Code Relief Recuest: -Relief is requested from examining 100% of the Code-required surface of Pressurizer support skirt-to-lower head Weld 2R111NPZ101A, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-13 in Section XI of the Code.

Licensee's Proo.ps d Alternative Examination: In-lieu of a magnetic particle (MT) examination of the inside-surface (surface area C D in figuro IWB-2500-13) of the skirt attachment weld, the Licensee will perform an ultrasonic (UT) examination from the outside-surfaces of the attachment weld and adjacent base materials. An MT examination will be conducted on the exterior surfaces of the attachment weld and adjacent base materials (surface area A-B) in accordance with Code requirements.

6

v ,

.e ,

l Licensee's Basis for Psausstina Relief: Surface area C-D is l inaccessible for s'arface examination. Access to this area is -

i restricted by the pressurizer heaters which are located l approx 5&tely 13 inches from the inside surface of the support

!, skirt. {

l.,

The Licensee reports that the proposed alternative examination i provides coverage of the interior surfaces that would have been - .l examined by the internal MT examination. Furthermore, this UT -l examination provides coverage of the attachment weld and j L portions of adjacent base material volumes not obtainable by MT j examination.  !

t Evaluation: Based on the design of the support skirt  !

attachment, the surface examination of the subject weld is .,

impractical to perform to the extent required by the Code. A significant percentage of the Code-required surface examination.

(surface area A B) can and will be perfomed. The remainder of the weld (surface area C-D) is inaccessible for surface  !

examination.

i The proposed alternative UT examination provides a level of assurance of structu'ral integrity that is equivalent, if not  !

superior, to that. obtainable by an MT examination performed on  !

the interior surfaces of the attachment weld.

4 h

conclusions: Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded  !

that the Code-required examination is impractical to perform to .[

the extent required by the Code and that the limited Section XI surface examination, in conjunction with the Licensee's proposed alternative UT examination.. meets or exceeds the -

intent of the Code. Therefore, it is recommended that relief-  :

be grinted 'as requested.  !

7

.o

~

v , ,

e-3.1.3 Heat Exchanaars and Steam Generators (No relief requests) 3.1.4 Pinina Pressure Boundarv (Noreliefrequests)

, 3.1.5 Pumo Pressure Boundarv (No relief requests) 3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundarv (Noreliefrequests) 3.1.7 General (No relief requests) 3.2 Class 2 comconents 3.2.1 Pressure Vessels 3.2.1.1 Raouest for Relief RR-ENC-08. Examination Cateoory C-B.

Item C2.22. Steam Generator Main Steam Notzle Inside Radius Section Code Reauirement: Section XI, Table IWC 2500-1. Examination Category C-8, Item C2.22 requires a 100% volumetric-examination of Class 2 vessel nozzle inside radius sections as defined by Figure IWC-2500-4.

Licensee's Code Relief Rgaggil: Relief is requested from performing the Code-required volumetric examination of the.

inside radius sections of the Steam Generator main steam nozzles.

I Licensee's Proposed Alternative Examination: None Licensee's Basis for Reauestina Reliaf: The subject Steam Generator main steam nozzles are fabricated as a one-piece I forging containing a set of seven holes bored parallel to the.

nozzle centerline. ' A flow restrictor is installed in each of these holes.

8 'l

l <

W The Licensee reports that,.since the ligaments between the )

holes distribute the stresses throughout-the nozzle forging,  !

there is no high stress, inside radius section for this main  !

steam nozzle design. Therefore, the Section XI nozzle inside  !

. radius section examination requirements'are not applicable to I the subject main steam nozzles. .

, - t Evaluation: The main steam nozzle was designed with an internal, multiple hole type flow restrictor. This design does  !

not use a radiused nozzle as described in Figure IWC-2500-4,-  !

i but instead has several individual inner radii corresponding to ~

t each hole. Therefore, the Code-required volumetric examination i of the nozzle inner radius section is impractical to perform.  ;

Conclusions:

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the Code-required examination is impractical to perform. ,

Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as {

requested. ,

3.2.2 Pinina (Noreliefrequests) [

3.2.3 f.mp.1 (No relief requests)

  • 3.2.4 Valves (Noreliefrequests) i 3.2.5 General (No relief: requests) 3.3 Class 3 Components (No relief requests) r

!i 3.4 Pressure Tests (Noreliefrequests)  :

t 3.5 General (No relief requests) l

?

s s, - . . . , . , . - . . _ . . , . . , - , . . , . , .c....,.,, , ,. ,, ., + , , , . , , . , .

4. CONCLUSION  !,

i Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), it has been determined that certain l

L Section XI required inservice examinations are impractical to perform. In ,

.. all cases, the Licensee has demonstrated that specific Section XI requirements are impractical.

l m

This technical evaluation has not identified any practical method by which l the Licensee can meet all the specific inservice inspection requirements of =

Section XI of the ASME Code for the existing South Texas Project Electric l Generating Station, Unit 2, facility. Requiring compliance with all the ,

exact Section XI required inspections would require redesign of components  !

such as the Pressurizer support skirt and the Steam Generator main steam j

nozzles. Replacement components would need to be obtained, installed, and' a {

baseline examination performed. Even after the redesign efforts, complete l ,

compliance with the Section XI examination requirements may not be achieved. Therefore, it is concluded that the public interest is not served i by imposing certain provisions of Section XI of the AShi Code that have been' determined to be impractical. Pursuantto10CFR50.55a(g)(6),reliefis t allowed from these requirements which are impractical tolmplement if *~

granting the relief will not endanger life or property or the connon defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest.giving due '

consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could' result if the -

requirements were imposed on the facility.

)

, The development of new or improved examination techniques should continue to .3 L be monitored. As isnprovements in these areas are achieved, the. O_censee- i

! should incorporate these techniques in the ISI program plan examination-l, requirements, i Based on the review of the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station,-

Unit 2, first 10 year interval inservice, inspection program plans, as submitted June 15, 1989, aid the recommendations for granting relief-from the ISI examination requiraments that have been determined to be i

10 -

i

,= e nw,,,, rew---r-, , . , ---v-e ,-e., -----r--,-m-e

4

s. *

., ,,impr,a.ctical, it is concluded that the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10-year interval inservice inspection program plans, as submitted June 15, 1989, are acceptable and in compliance '

with10CFR50.55a(g)(4).

8 j ...

f 11 r

a;

~. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _

l

.p i t

L I

5. REFERENCES i
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 10, Part 50.

l

2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel l Code,Section XI, Division 1, 1983 Edition through Summer 1983 Addenda.
3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel' I i Code, Code Cases Nuclear Components, 1989 Edition. -
4. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, " Inservice Inspection Code Case .

Acceptability, ASME Section XI Division 1," Revision 7 July 1989.

5. Inservice Inspection Plan for the First Inspection Interval of'the South  :

Texas Project Electric Generating Station - Unit 2, issued June 1989. 1 7

6. First 10 Year Interval Long-Term Inservice Examination Plan for the i South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, (2 volume set) l dated May 1989. ,
7. Inservice Inspection' Examination of Component Supports of South Texas Project Electric Generating Station - Unit 2, First Inspection Interval, -

issued June 12, 1989. ,

8. Letter, dated May 11, 1989, M. A..McBurnett [ Houston Lighting'and Power  !

i Company (HL&PC)) to NRC, submitting the:ISI relief requests applicable j for the first 10-year inspection interval.

~

9. Letter, dated June'20, 1989, M. A. McBurnett (HL&PC) to Document Control  !

Desk (NRC), " Request for Approval of ASME Code Case N-460."

10. NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plans, Section 3.6.1 " Plant Design for .

Protection Against Postulated Piping. Failures in Fluid Systems outside

! Containment," Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary Inservice '

l Inspection and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice Inspection of  ;

Class 2 and 3 Components," July 1981.

11. IE Bulletin No. 79 17 " Pipe Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water Systems at ,

PWR Plants,". Revision 1, October 29, 1979.

l 12. IE Bulletin No. 88-08, " Thermal Stresses in Piping Connected to RCS," i Supplement 3, issued April 11, 1989.

lr  :

13. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.14 " Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity,"

Revision 1, August 1975.

1

14. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.65, " Materials and Inspections for Reactor.  ;

Vessel Closure Studs," Revision 0, October 1983.

15. USNRC Regulatory Guide-l.150, " Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel (

Welds During Preservice and Inservice Examinations," Revision 1, .

february 1983.

12 j

  1. a sc in v.s. =uc6saa asow6aton v coua=ssio=  ;
mum SISUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
_ saw sw wr .ana. ,

3

a. titts ar.o ws'"" EGG MS-8964 .

Technical Evaluation Report on the First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan: t oats aeromveus to i Houston Lighting and Power Company, =o~'- j m South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, June 1989

' Unit 2 Docket Number 50-499 ( am oa caant =vveia )

. FIN-06022 (Proj. 5) '

s.aut oais, e tv,a os aseoat i

e Technical

~

TB.V.' Brown, J.D. Mudlin 2 reasoocovsaso ,

i. egugaggpization - ~ i ano acoasss ,,,..c.- e . ea u -a , -- --... ,.

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

P. O. Box 1625  ;

-Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2209 -

i e.,spoggsanizatio= -i.ame ==o meonass u,=c. 3 . .., .-=c = == -a u ==

Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch  !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

to. 5UPPLEMENTaav =oits Il.488Ta*CT (Jap.ee w ,

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the South Texas Project .

Electric Generating Station, Unit 2, first 10-Year interval inservice inspection ,

(ISI) program plans, submitted June 15, 1989, and the requests for relief from the  ;

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical, submitted May 11, 1989. The South Texas Project Electric Generating Station.

  • Unit 2, first 10-Year interval ISI program plans are evaluated in-Section 2 of this report. The ISI program plans are evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, (c) -

correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion i criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related comitments identified during'the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) review before granting an operating license. ,

The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report. -!

i ia. siv woaos.ossCa:etons a., ~ ,, . ., .t ... .. 1,31 1 . 1 -

Unlimited

64. 55Cwa s T , C A5BGaraON ~!

ar w .

Unclassified or. n, Uncl assified -

it.NvwBla of P Ges -

t s. PaiCE >

aC *ome sat taesi j

- - . . ~ - -.  :- ,. .-..:.-. . . - . -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20059N794&oldid=3079144"