ML20212J598
| ML20212J598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1999 |
| From: | Peterson S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Scalice J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J604 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-MA5916, TAC-MA5917, NUDOCS 9910050214 | |
| Download: ML20212J598 (2) | |
Text
Mr. J. A. Scalice October 1, 1999 Chief Nucle"r Officer cnd Ex:cutiva Vice Prnident Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYA.H NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CERTAIN CODE INSPECTIONS ON CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM (TAC NOS. MA5916 AND MA5917)
Dear Mr. Scalice:
By letter dated June 8,1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, requirements for certain inservice inspections (Isis) at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. Specifically, TVA submitted Request for Relief 1-1S1-14, seeking relief from the requirements of the ASME Code,Section XI, to perform 100 percent volumetric examination of two ASME Class 2 welds (CSHXW-6-B and CSHXW-7-8), which are full-penetration fillet-reinforced welds at the intet and outlet nozzle-to-shell connections of the containment spray heat exchanger. Relief is sought in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) because the design configuration of the welds precludes a 100 percent volumetric (ultrasonic) examination of the welds, therefore "conformance with... requirements is impractical."
We have completed our review of the subject relief request. Our Safety Evaluation and conclusion to support granting relief to TVA are enclosed. The relief request was reviewed against the requirements of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code,Section XI, for piping and components and against 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). Relief is hereby granted for two ASME Class i
2 welds (CSHXW-6-8 and CSHXW-7-B) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) for the second 10-year interval. In making this deterrr.: nation, the staff considered the impracticality of performing l
the required inspections and the burden on the licensee if the Code requirements were imposed.
l Granting the relief is authorized by law, will not endanger !ife, property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon i
the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed.
l Sincerely i
Originetl signed 9910050214 991001 Sheri R. Peterson, Chief, Section 2 PDR ADOCK 05000327 Project Directorate 11 P
PDR Division of Licensing Project Management g
Office of Nuclear Reactor Rogulation Docket No: 50-327 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Filei BClayton OGC GHill(2)
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation PUBLIC SPeterson ACRS RHernan SON R/F MSatorius RScholl(e-mail RFS) cc w/ enclosure: See next page HBerkow TSullivan PFredrickson, Ril Shou DOCUMENT NAME: G:tPDil-2\\SQNiREl,A5916.wpd To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment /enclosurc "N" = No copy g
OFFICE PDil-2/PM l PDil-2/LA l
OGC PDil-2/SC m NAME RHernanM BClayton ETh @dLOMIL SPetersdrlP Ik
\\
I DATE 9/8 3/99 9 / M /99 9 />/ /99/ -
le/ l /99 l
Official Record Qopy CE
1 4
b
$*U%
j 9
[*
a UNITED STATES s
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 I
October 1, 1999 Mr. J. A. Scalice
~
Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 i
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CERTAIN CODE INSPECTIONS ON CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM I
(TAC NOS. MA5916 AND MA5917)
Dear Mr. Scalice:
By letter dated June 8,1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel j
Code,Section XI, requirements for certain inservice inspections (ISIS) at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. Specifically, TVA submitted Request for Relief 1-ISI-14, seeking relief from the j
requirements of the ASME Code,Section XI, to perform 100 percent volumetric examination of l
two ASME Class 2 welds (CSHXW-6-8 and CSHXW-7-B), which are full-penetration fillet-reinforced welds at the inlet and outlet nozzle-to-shell connections of the containment spray heat exchanger. Relief is sought in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) because the design configuration of the welds precludes a 100 percent volumetric (ultrasonic) examination of the i
welds, therefore "conformance with... requirements is impractical."
We have completed our review of the subject relief request. Our Safety Evalua9n and conclusion to support granting relief to TVA are enclosed. The relief request was reviewed against the requirements of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code,Section XI, for piping and components and against 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). Relief is hereby granted for two ASME Class 2 welds (CSHXW-S-B and CSHXW-7-B) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) for the second 10-year interval. In making this determination, the staff considered the impracticaiity of performing
{
the required inspections and the burden on the licensee if the Code requirements were imposed.
i Granting the relief is authorized by law, will not endanger life, property, or the common 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.
1 Sincerely, l
C. k k.
- AvR Sheri R. Peterson, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate il 3
Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-327
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation j
i cc w/ enclosure: See next page I
L
)