ML20207N301
| ML20207N301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701140111 | |
| Download: ML20207N301 (4) | |
Text
Safety Evaluation Peport Pump and Valve Inservice Testir.g Program Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket hos. 50-413 and 50-414 1.0 Introduction By letter dated March 9,1983, Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitted its first ten-year Inservice Testing (IST) Program on pumps and valves for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
By letters dated July 10, 13, 18, 23, 27, October 1, Dectreber 17, 1984, February 15, March 29, September 5, November 27, 1985, and I'. arch 3,1986, the licensee submitted Revisions 1 through 12 to Unit 1 IST program. A Noverrber 6,1984, submittal supplemented revisions 2 and 3 submitted on July 13 and 18, 1984, by identifying additional chances..
Similarly, by letter dated October 25, 1985, the licensee submitted an IST program for Catawba Unit 2 purips end valves. By letters dated fieverrber 27,1985, March 3, and June 23, 1986, the licensee submitted Revisions 1 through 3 to Unit 2 IST program.
Section 50.55a, " Codes and Standards," of 10 CFR Part 50 requires, in part, that certain safety-related pumps and valves meet the recuirerrents of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASf'E)
Doiler and Pressure Yessel Code (hereafter "the Code").
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) the licensee has requested relief from'sorce of the testing requirerrents of Section XI of the ASFE Code for certain pumps and valves that he has determined are impractical to test.
It should be noted that any additional requests for relief submitted by the licensee after the revisions noted above should not be implemented bj the licensee prior to NRC review and approval.
The I!P.C consultant, EG&G Idaho, Inc., has reviewed the licensee's IST program (through Revision 12 for Unit 1 and Revision 3 for Unit 2) and associated requests for specific reliefs frcrr the ASME Code,Section XI, and prepared the attached Technical Evaluation Report of the licensce's IST program for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed the evaluatien and concurs in its bases ano findings. The results of the review are provided belcw.
8701140111 8701os DR ADOCK 05000413 PDR
-?-
2.0 Evaluation Based on its review of the attached Technicel Evaluation. Report (TER) regarding the IST program for the Catawba Nuclear Station, the staff concludes that the licensee's IST program (throuch revision 12 for Unit I and revision 3 for Unit 2), and associated requests for relief from certain specific requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code (identified specificaly in the attached TER) are acceptable with the exceptions discussed telcw and identified in Appendix D of the EG8G TER. The licensee must resolve these exceptions in accordance with the evaluations discussed below and the guidelines presented in the EG8G TER. These exceptiens ar.d associated staff consnents are prcvided as follows.
1.
The staff finds unacceptable the request for relief from the accuracy requirements of Section XI for vibration amplitude measurements for all pumps in the IST program. The licensee is requirea to obtain suitably accurate instrumentation prior to the end of the next refueling outage, so that pump vibration amplitude can be measured in accordance with Section XI requirements.
Interim relief is granted to test the cumps as proposed by the licensee.
(See Section 2.1.2 of the EG&G report.)
~
P.
The staff finds unacceptable the request for relief fron the leek rate analysis and corrective action requirements of Section XI for containment isolation valves. The licensee is required to revise his IST program to ccmply with the staff position stated in the ECt.C report.
(See Section 3.1.3 of the EG8G report.)
3.
The licensee has requested relief frca exercising valves CA8, CA10, and CA12, auxiliary feedwater ncn-sefety suction isolation valves, and has proposed to verify valve closure by pressurization during refueling outages. The staff finds this citernetive method acceptable, prcvided that the licensee verifies valve closure at a cold shutdown interval, rather than a refueling intervel.
(See Section 3.2.1.1 of the EG8G report.)
4.
(Unit 2 only) The licensee has requested relief from exercising valves 2VI367 and 2VI368, PORY supply from instrument air check valves, and valves 2VI369 ar.d 2VI370, PORV supply from nitrogen accurt.ulator check valves, and has proposed to verify valve closure (2VI367, 2VI368) or creration (2VI369, 2VI370) during perforrr.ance of PORY Technical Specification surveillance testing. The staff finds these alternative retheds acceptable, provided that the licensee tests these valves during cold shutdowns, rather than every 18 months as proposed.
(See Sections 3.16.2.1 and 3.16.2.2 of t5e EG8G report.)
5.
The licensee has requested relief frora exercising certain containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves (identified in Section 3.17.1.1 of the EG&G report), and has proposed to test ther whenever they are cycled for another purpose. The staff finds that the licensee trust exercise these valves on a regular cold shutdown schedule.
(See Section 3.17.1.1 of the EG8G report.)
6.
The licensee's program for Unit 2 includes a valve EllIliV5231 but a correspending valve is not included in the Unit 1 program.
In a telephone conference call on December 23, 1986, the licensee informed the staff that the valve listing we., in error, and that valve 2MIf1V5231 does not exist. The licensee will delete this valve from the program; the staff finds this acceptable.
7.
The licensee's program for Unit 1 includes relief request H17 for valves INI438A and INI4398. The Unit 2 program has the corresponding valves but the valve list does not reference relief request H17 nor is H17 included in the relief request section.
In a telephone conference call on Decer:ber 23, 1986, the licensee informed the staff of its intention to withdraw relief request H17 for Unit 1.
Therefore, the valves noted above will be tested in acccrdance with the requirements of Section XI for both Units 1 and 2; the staff finds this acceptable.
' Conclusion The Commission staff has reviewed the licensee's requests for.r.elief-pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(1). Our review has determined that the Code requireroents for the components specified in the licensee's submittals (with exceptions listed above) are impractical and the granting of the relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, givine due censideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were ir.: posed on the facility.
9 4
1 l
l l
- - - - - - - - -