ML20214Q189

Safety Evaluation Granting Relief Re Inservice Evaluation Criteria for Disposition of Linear Indication in Reactor Coolant pipe-to-safe End Weld on Cold Leg Pipe of Loop C

ML20214Q189
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	11/17/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214Q184	List: ML20214Q181 ML20214Q189
References
TAC-63521, NUDOCS 8612050023
Download: ML20214Q189 (4)

Text

. p ur o UNITED STATES

[8 ' ~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, L :E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

\..../

+

SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GRANTING 0F RELIEF BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL'ATION RELATED TO INSERVICE EVALUATION CRITERIA ALABAMA POWER COMPANY I

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-348 INTRODUCTION The Technical Specifications for the J.M. Farley Nuclear Power Plait Unit No I state that inservice examination of ASME RAPV Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components shall be perfonned in accordance with Section XI of the Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission. The examination program at Farley Unit No.1 is based upon the requirements of the 1974 Edition and Addenda through the Summer of 1975. Certain evaluation criteria of this Edition and Addenda of Section XI are inappropriate for evaluation of indications found during nondestructive examination perfonned in accordance with paragraph IWR-3514.1. During the seventh refueling outage on Unit 1, while performing a surface examination of one reactor coolant pipe-to-safe end weld on the cold leg (inlet) pipe of loop C, a linear indication was found. Therefore, the licensee requests relief on a one-time basis to disposition the indication.

In order to complete the first ten-year inspection interval at Joseph M. Farley -

Nuclear Plant. Unit No. 1, relief from certain Code inservice inspection requirements is required. 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1) authorizes the Comission to grant relief from those requirements upon making the necessary findings that'the requirements are impractical to perform.

Pe had reviewed Alabama Power Company's (the licensee) first ten-year interval inservice' inspection program plan and the request for relief from certain requirements of the applicable ASME Code edition and addenda. We had provided a number of Safety Evaluations and had granted relief from examination requirements which we had determined to be impractical to perform at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Our previous actions are included in letters dated December 7,1979 August 24, 1983 February 10, and March 30, 1984 (one-time relief), January 10, and December 27, 1985, and June 19, 1986.

By letter dated November 10, 1986, the licensee requested a one-time relief from the specific evaluation criteria for Farley Unit No.1 inservice examination requirements of the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda of Section XI h

0 0M gK 3OD000348 061117 PDR

of the ASME Code. The following is our evaluation of the ifcensee's request, supporting infonnation, and alternative examination criteria, as well as the staff's bases for granting the request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g). The relief granted remains in effect for the first ten-year inspe~ction interval unless revised or modified prior to the end of the interval.

EVALUATION OF RELIEF RE0 VEST

1. Licensee's Request -

The licensee requests to use the flaw evaluation criteria of the 1983 Edition through Sumer 1983 Addenda of Section XI in lieu of those given in the 1974 Edition through Sumer 1975 Addenda, e

2. Licensee's Pasis For Request l

The existing evaluation requirements are inappropriate for the

! evaluation of linear indications detected by surface methods, particularly where the <iepth of the indication cannot be quantified.

Volumetric examination does not detect the presence of the indication.

3. Licensee's Proposed Alternative i

The indication found during performance of the surface examination of

' the reactor coolant pipe-to-safe end weld (Item B4.1 Category B-F) will be evaluated in accordance with the ASME Code,Section XI, paragraph IWB-3514.3,1983 Edition through the Summer 1983 Addenda.

4. Staff Safety Conclusions The staff's review of the request and the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55afg)(4)(iv) concludes that the evaluation criteria given in the 1983 Edition through Sumer 1983 Addenda are the appropriate evaluation criteria to be used for the type material and flaw detected during .the surface examination. This edition and addenda of Section XI have been endorsed by the Comission and approval to use the evaluation criteria contained therein should be granted.

The flaw detected by the surface examination is reported to be located beyond the safe-end weld and heat affected zone and beyond the exanination area required by Section XI. It was also reported by the licensee that the flaw was detected during preservice examination and dispositioned as being acceptable. If the flaw is evaluated in accordance'with the rules of IWB-3514.3 of the 1983 edition throuch Sumer 1983 Addenda of Section XI, the size of the allowable surface flaw is greater than the 0.25 inch flaw detected and therefore the pipe is acceptable for. continued operation.

However, documentation supporting the preservice detection and sizing of the flaw could not be produced by the licensee. Therefore, the staff will require that the flaw be reexamined at or near the end of the first period of the Farley Unit I second inservice inspection interval (December 1, 1990) in order to verify that growth of the indication is not occurring.

.y. - , -- - , _ . ~ . . _ . , , - - _ . - _ . , , y

The existing evaluation requirements are inappropriate for evaluation of the '

linear indication detected during this inspection since the depth of the indication cannot be quantified. The proposed alternative evaluation criteria of the 1983 Edition through the Summer 1983 Addenda of Section XI are appropriate

.for the indication detected and this Code edition and Addenda has been endorsed by the Commission. Since the ASME Code requirements are impractical and the a alternative methods provide adequate assurance of the structural integrity, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) and 50.55a(g)(6)(i).

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION Based on the review, the staff concludes that the relief granted from the evaluation criteria for the specific examination and the alternate evaluation criteria imposed through this document give reasonable assurance of the component pressure boundary and support. structural integrity, that granting relief where the Code requirement hds impractical, is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden that could result if they were imposed on the facility.

DATE: November 17, 1986 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:

G. Johnson l

6 4

m e

l

, Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Alabama Power Company Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant cc:

Mr. W. O. Whitt . D. Biard MacGuineas, Esquire Executive Vice President Volpe, Boskey and Lyons Alabama Power Company 918 16th Street, N.W. -

Post Office Box 2641 Washington, DC 20006 Birmingham, Alabama 35291-0400' -

Charles R. Lcwman Mr. Louis B. Long, General Manager Alabama Electric Corporation Southern Company Services, Inc. Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 2625- Andalusia, Alabama 36420 Birmingham, Alabama 35202

• Chairman' Regional Administrator, Region II Houston County Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dothan, Alabama 36301 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Claude Earl Fox, M.D.

2300 N Street, N.W. State Health-Officer Washington, DC 20037 State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Robert A. Buettner, Esquire ,

, Balch, Bingham, Raker, Hawthorne, Mr. J. D. Woodard '

Williams and Ward General Manager - Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 306 Post Office Box 470 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Ashford, Alabama 36312 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 24 - Route 2 Columbia, Alabama 36319 s

t l

-_