ML20071P640
| ML20071P640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1994 |
| From: | Noonan T DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408090463 | |
| Download: ML20071P640 (2) | |
Text
.
m __ -_
-r W
- 2
'A@
Telephone (412) 393-6000 Nuclear Group P O Bon 4
$hippengport, PA 15077-0004 August 3, 1994 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 and No. 2 BV-1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 BV-2 Docket No. 50-412, License No. NPF-73 Code Case N-498-1; Alternative Rules for 10-Year System Hydrostatic Testing for Class 1, 2,
and 3 Systems Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2 are both currently in the third period of their respective ten year ISI inspection intervals.
The inspection and test programs for these units are conducted in accordance with the requirements of ASME Code Section XI, 1983
- Edition, Summer 1983 Addenda.
The code requires that hydrostatic tests be performed once during the 10 year interval, at or near the end of the interval.
Code Case N-498-1, which delineates alternatives to the performance of these hydrostatic tests, was recently approved by the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee and, as a
- result, has not yet been included in Regulatory Guide 1.147,
" Inservice Inspection Code case Acceptability ASME Section XI Division I."
Code Case N-498-1 provides for an alternative to hydrostatic testing which will retain an acceptable level of quality and safety for Class 1,
2, and 3 systems.
Duquesne Light Company previously received permission to use Code Case N-498 (for Class 1 and 2 systems only) via NRC letter S/N BV-91-057, dated December 24, 1991 j
(attached).
This code case was revised to include Class 3 systems.
The Subcommittee Working Group on Pressure Testing (SWGPT) concluded
- that, as with Class 1 and 2 systems, no additional benefit would be gained by conducting the existing Class 3 system hydrostatic tests versus -performing leak tests at nominal operating pressure.
The conclusion of the group was that-hydrostatic testing does not verify structural integrity, and in fact, the slightly higher test' pressures currently called for in the code could result in operational difficulties as well as extended outages and increased costs.
By implementing the alternative, testing provisions of Code Case N-498-1, personnel radiation
- exposure, outage testing time, and costs can be significantly reduced.
ec I
vvw. t.
.~
W The Nuclear Professionals O,
gI 9400090463 940003 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
. cr
- ' Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 & No. 2 i
Code Case N-498-1; Alternative Rules for 10-Year System Hydrostatic Testing for Class 1, 2,
and 3 Systems l
Page 2 Therefore, this submittal is requesting approval pursuant to 10 CFR
- 50. 55a (a) (3),
for the use of Code Case N-498-1, " Alternative Rules for 10-Year System Hydrostatic Testing for Class 1, 2,
and 3 Systems."
NRC approval is requested in a
time frame that will support implementation of the code case requirement for the Unit 1 tenth refueling outage currently scheduled to begin in mid-October of 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this request or require additional information, please contact Mr.
Nelson R.
Tonet at l
(412) 393-5210.
Sincerely, em M
Thomas P.
Noonan Division Vice President Nuclear Operations cc:
Mr.
L.
W.
Rossbach, Sr. Resident Inspector Mr.
T.
T.
Martin, NRC Region I Administrator Mr.
G.
E.
Edison, Project Manager i
i L--
J