ML20203N698

Sser Supporting Util Request for Relief from Preservice Insp Program Requirements

ML20203N698
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/10/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20203N694	List: ML20203N692 ML20203N695 ML20203N698
References
NUDOCS 8610170200
Download: ML20203N698 (3)

Text

..

ATTACHMENT 2 SAFETY EVALUAT:0N REPORT SUPPLEMENT PRESERVICE INSPECTION RELIEF REQUEST EVALUATION CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-440 APPENDIX Q AMENDMENT 2 I. INTRODUCTION This evaluation amends the staff review reported in Appendix Q of SSER No. 7 and Appendix Q, Amendment 1, in SSER No. 8. In a letter dated July 11, 1986 (M. R. Edelman to W. R. Butler), the Applicant revised the previously submitted Relief Requests #1, #6, #19, and #22. Relief Requests #1, #6, and #19 were revised to include additional welds, and Relief Request #22 was revised to correct a misidentified item. The staff review of the information in this submittal is discussed in the following paragraphs.

II. TECHNICAL REVIEW CONSIDERATI0' The Applicant's submittal dated July 11, 1986 does not change the staff's discussion of the " Technical Review Considerations" in Appendix Q, SSER ho. 7.

When relevant information is contained in the corresponding section of Appendix Q of SSER No. 7 or Appendix Q as amended in SSER No. 8, the applicable SER supplement sill be referenced (i.e. "see Appendix Q, SSER No. 7"). For the basis of the staff review of the Perry Unit 1 Preservice Inspection (PSI) Program and requests for relief from impra *!ical requirements see Appendix Q, SSER No. 7. _ , . . . _ , - .

III. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS 01O$o p h 0 The Applicant requested relief from specific PSI requirements in a submittal dated June 3, 1985. For the staff evaluation of these subjects, see Appendix Q, SSER No. 7. In a submittal dated November 13, 1985, the Applicant provided a revision to the previously submitted Relief Request

1. 3 and submitted two additional relief requests (#21 and #22). The Applicant clarified these revised and new relief requests in a letter dated November 26, 1985. For the staff evaluation of these subjects, see Appendix Q, Amendment 1, in SSER No. 8.

In the submittal dated July 11, 1986, revisions to four of the previously submitted relief requests were received for staff review, Relief Requests

1. 1, #6, and #19 were revised to include additional welds and Relief i

Request #22 was revised to correct a misidentified item. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and review of the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components, the staff has determined I that certain preservice requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure

i' 1

i i 2 i

Vessel Code,Section XI are impractical. The Applicant has demonstrated that either (i) the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or (ii) compliance with the specified 1 requirements of this section would result in hardship or unusual l- difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and

! safety. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), conclusion that these preservice requirements are impractical is justified as follows.

! Unless otherwise stated, reference to.the Code refers to the ASME Code, ,

] Section XI, 1977. Edition including Addenda through Summer 1978.

A. Relief Request #1 (Revision 1), Category B-A, Pressure-Retaining Weld i in the Reactor Vessel, Category B-0, Reactor Vessel Nozzle Welds, and Category B-F, Deactor Vessel Safe End Welds Code Requirement: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7" Code Relief Request: Relief is requestec from performing 100% of the

, Code-required volumetri; examination on the subject areas identified

! in the July 11, 1986 submittal of Revision 1 of Relief Request #1.

(Note: Two bottom head welds were added to the relief request in

] Rev. 1) j Reason for Request: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7" j Staff Evaluation: The Applicant's Revision No. 1 of Relief Request #1, submitted July 11, 1986, contains a table revising the

! listing of reactor vessel welds for which relief is being requested (2 l welds added). This was the only change, therefore, the staff 1

conclusion remains the same as reported in Appendix Q of SSER No. 7.

I

! E. Relief Requests #5, #6 (Revision 1), #17, and #18 Categories B-J and C-F, Class 1 and Class 2 Pressure-Retaining Welds in Piping Code Requirement: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7"

{ Code Relief Request: For Relief Requests #5, #17, and #18 "SEE

! APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7" l

Relief is requested from perforring 100% of the Code-required volumetric examination on the 44 welds with corrosion-resistant cladding identified in the July 11, 1986 submittal of Revision 1 to j Relief Request #6. (Note: Eighteen welds with corrosion-resistant cladding were added to the relief request in Rev. 1.)

Reason for Request: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7" l Staff Evaluation: The Applicant's Revision 1 of Relief Request #6,  !

I submitted July 11, 1986, contains a table revising the listing of welds with corrosion-resistant cladding for which relief is being j

requested (18 welds added). This was the only change, therefore, the staff conclusion remains the same as reported in Appendix Q of  ;

SSER ho. 7.

t._-___.___.- _____

3 G. Relief Requests #9, #19 (Revision 1), and #20, Categories B-M-1 and C-G, Valve Body and Pump Casing Welds Code Requirement: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7"

^

Code Relief Requdst: Relief is requested from performing the Code-required surface or volumetric examination on the 20 valve body welds listed in the July 3, 1985 submittal of Relief Requests #9 and

1. 20, and on the 28 pump casing welds listed in the July 11, 1986 submittal of Revision 1 to Relief Request #19. (Not2: Fifteen pump casing welds were added to Relief Request #19 in Rev. 1.)

Reason for Request: "SEE APPENDIX Q, SSER NO. 7" Staff Evaluation: The Applicant's Revision 1 of Relief Request #19, submitted July 11, 1986, contains a table revising the listing of pump casing welds for which relief is being requested (15 welds added).

This was the only change, therefore, the staff conclusion remains the same as reported in Appendix Q of SSER No. 7.

L. Relief Requests #21 and #22 (Revision 2), Categories B-K-1 and C-C, ASME Code Class 1 and Class 2 Integrally Welded Support Attachments Code Requirement: "SEE APPENDIX Q, Amendment 1, in SSER NO. 8" Code Relief Request: "SEE ADPENDIX Q, Amendment 1, in SSER NO. 8" Reasqn for Request: "SEE APPENDIX Q, Amendment 1, in SSER NO. 8" Staff Evaluation: The Applicant's Revision 2 of Relief Recuest #22, submitted on July 11, 1986, contains a table correcting the identification number of the Class 2 integrally welded support attachment for which relief is being requested. This was the only cnange, therefore, the staff conclusion remains the same as reported in Appendix Q, Amendment 1, in SSER No. 8.

IV. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), the staff has a determined that certain Section XI required preservice examinations are impractical. The staff revier and evaluation of the Applicant's July 11, 1986 submittal concludes that the public interest is not served by imposing certain provisions of Section XI of the ASME Code that have been determined to be impractical. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3),

relief.is allowed from these requirements that are impractical to t implement. Therefore, the staff conclusion remains as reported in the corresponding section of Appendix Q, SSER 7.

4 d.

- - - _ - -